TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. January 29, 2013

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 29,

2 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

3 Project Connect CAMPO Centers Previous Studies/Plans Purpose & Need Congestion Growth Constraints Centers Travel Pattern/ Demand Analysis Transit Development Strategy Activity Density Index Implementation Strategies Conceptual Alternatives Alignments Modes/service options Coverage Centers served Design Charrette for Remaining Alternatives Alignments/modes/ service options Timing/phasing Centers and connecting land use structure Evaluation Criteria for Screening Initial Screening of Alternatives SROI Evaluation LPA 3

4 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

5 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

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 Centers Number served by type Transit-supportive planning Capacity Congestion Core Estimated change in corridor congestion and vehicle hours traveled Linkage between centers to relieve congestion to Core Propensity to use transit Constraints Environmental suitability ROW needs 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 Livability Potential to advance the six Livability Principles Added detail to the Factor based on Livability Principle sub-factors 9

10 10

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 extend sidewalks; bus pull-outs Rezone around transit centers and major stops Phase 2 5 to 10 years Phase 3 10 to 20 years 11

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 extend sidewalks; bus pull-outs Rezone around transit centers and major 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

13 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 extend sidewalks; bus pull-outs Rezone around transit centers and major 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 Construct rail in most suitable alignments with circulators Program station locations as system expands Set minimum development standards and use mix 13

14 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

15 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

16 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

17 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

18 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

19 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

20 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

21 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 22

23 Service Features Local bus & shuttle operations at baseline levels (30 min peak) Service Type Persons + jobs/acre Index Local Transit 5-20 Development/ Density/patterns + mobility support 5-8 DU/A Limited mobility support Linkages between centers Limited Local bus at enhanced service level (15 min. peak) Arterial Transit Up to 20 DU/A Moderate mobility support Emerging Local bus & limited stop operations (10 min peak) Rapid Transit Up to 40 DU/A High mobility support Planned Local bus & LRT/BRT (5 min peak) High Capacity Transit 60+ > 40 DU/A High mobility support Committed 23

24 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

25 Areas that have or are planned to have transitsupportive 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

26 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

27 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

28 Maps for North Corridor and each Alternative AREA-WIDE MAP OF TRANSIT SUPPORTIVENESS CORRIDOR MAP OF SINGLE MEASURE 28

29 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

30 Suburban Neighborhood Less than 7 du/ac, 1-2 floors typical, Low density single family subdivision, 5,000 sf lots or greater Compact Neighborhood 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 du/ac, 2-3 floors typical, Surface parked, garden apartments, stacked flats Urban Neighborhood du/ac, 3-4 floors typical, wood frame construction, encapsulated or podium garage Urban Neighborhood du/ac, greater than 4 floors, high density, high rise, concrete and wood construction, typically in more urban locations 30

31 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 32

33 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

34 Technical Advisory Committee Thank You! January 29,