STEP 3 PUBLIC WORKSHOP Select a Priority Sub-Corridor Where are we going next? November 7, 2013 St. David s Episcopal Church
Agenda 1) Welcome & Who s Here? 2) Project Connect 3) Central Corridor Study Area 4) Sub-Corridors 5) Problem Statements 6) Evaluation Process & Criteria 7) Sub-Corridor Data 8) Next Steps 2
How will your input be used? We need your help in evaluating where our next transit investment should go We will evaluate several different parts of central Austin (Sub-Corridors) Tonight, you will help prioritize problem statements and evaluation criteria Your prioritization will help inform the Project Team s weighting of criteria during evaluation of sub-corridors Your feedback on data and process will help improve our evaluation process. 3
Introduce yourself to your table. Why are you here today? Table Discussion (5 minutes) 4
Who has the best queso? A. Maudie s B. Chuy s C. Serrano s D. El Mercado E. Kerbey Lane F. Matt s El Rancho G. Other 5
In what part of town do you live? A. East Austin B. Northeast Austin C. North Austin D. Northwest Austin E. West Austin F. Downtown G. Southwest Austin H. South Austin I. Southeast Austin 6
How often do you use public transportation? A. Everyday B. A few times per week C. A few times per month D. A few times per year E. Never 7
Is this the first time you have participated in a Project Connect activity? A. Yes B. No C. I don t know 8
Project Connect 9
Regional Challenges & Opportunities Centers Core Constraints Growth Congestion 10
Project Connect Vision 11
Project Connect Next Steps 12
Project Connect Corridors 9 Project Connect Corridors 5 High Priority: North East Southwest Northwest Central NORTH NORTHWEST EAST CENTRAL SOUTHWEST 13
Central Corridor Study Work Plan Data-Driven Driven Decision-Making Process Phase 1: Select Priority Sub-Corridor Where are we going next? next? Ends December 2013 Phase 2: Select Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) How will we get there? January 2014 June 2014 14
Central Corridor Study Area 15
Where are we going next? Evaluation Criteria 16
Study Area Definition Limits 9 Project Connect Corridors PROJECT CONNECT REGIONAL CORRIDORS p2 17
Study Area Definition Limits Purpose of limits is to focus analysis and identify problems Loosely bound by : N: North of RM 2222 E: Springdale/Grove S: Oltorf W: MoPac PROJECT CONNECT REGIONAL CORRIDORS p2 18
Sub-Corridors A defined geographic area with characteristics and facilities serving similar travel patterns. 19
Sub-Corridors Where are we going next? next? 10 Sub-Corridors identified with community feedback Some Sub-Corridors overlap Core defined for this study as Downtown, Capitol Complex, UT Core part of each Sub- Corridor, but not used in comparison Core will be served 20
Which sub-corridor do you currently prefer for our next transit investment? A. East Riverside (ERC) B. East Austin C. MLK D. Mueller E. Highland F. Lamar G. Mopac H. West Austin I. SoLa J. SoCo 21
Why do you prefer that sub-corridor for the next transit investment? Table Discussion (5 Minutes) 22
Where are we going next? Evaluation Criteria 23
Problem Statements Excessive roadway congestion surrounding the core and lack of Congestion transportation alternatives make travel time to the Central Corridor unreliable. Existing and planned regional transit investments converge System on the Central Corridor without adequate system integration The Central Corridor lacks multimodal Centers connectivity between activity centers. Central Corridor mobility is constrained by existing physical infrastructure and & anticipated Growth employment and population growth. Constraints The economic health of the region s core is at risk access to the core Core is critical to the region's continued success. 24
Problem Statements Excessive roadway congestion surrounding the core and lack of transportation alternatives make travel time to the Central Corridor unreliable. Existing and planned regional transit investments converge on the Central Corridor without adequate system integration The Central Corridor lacks multimodal connectivity between activity centers. Central Corridor mobility is constrained by existing physical infrastructure and anticipated employment and population growth. The economic health of the region s core is at risk access to the core is critical to the region's continued success. 25
Which problems are the most important for us to address? Table Discussion (5 Minutes) Rank Problems 1 5 (1 = Most Important) 26
Rank the importance of the Central Corridor problems from 1 to 5 (1 = Most Important) A. Congestion B. Constraints & Growth C. Core D. Centers E. System 27
Evaluation Process & Criteria 28
Where are we going next? Evaluation Criteria 29
Evaluation Process Collect Pertinent Data Graphic Representation of Key Data Develop Evaluation Matrix Develop Criteria (Indices) Public Input on Evaluation Recommendation 30
Evaluation Criteria Criteria flow from Problem Statements, Goals & Objectives Use to compare and prioritize Sub-Corridors Not for selecting alignments Using existing data sources Problems Goals Objectives Criteria 31
Evaluation Process Collect Pertinent Data Graphic Representation of Key Data Develop Evaluation Matrix Develop Criteria (Indices) Public Input on Evaluation Recommendation 32
Map Book Working Working reference Used to define sub- corridors Foundation for evaluation Data table will be provided Data Dictionary Quality Control on-going 33
Evaluation Process Collect Pertinent Data Graphic Representation of Key Data Develop Evaluation Matrix Develop Criteria (Indices) Public Input on Evaluation Recommendation 34
Develop Evaluation Criteria Criteria have evolved Started with broad categories Socioeconomic Transportation Centers Social Equity Other Sought input from public at open houses 35
Evaluation Criteria Refinement Transitioned to index-based approach What is an index? Combine specific data measures to create a common score Benefits of indices Aid in evaluation Allow weighting factors to be applied 36
Evaluation Criteria Guide SAMPLE 37 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Evaluation Process Collect Pertinent Data Graphic Representation of Key Data Develop Evaluation Matrix Develop Criteria (Indices) Public Input on Evaluation Recommendation 38
Evaluation Criteria CONGESTION Congestion Index - How congested is this sub- corridor? Travel Demand Index - How much travel occurs in each sub-corridor? 39
Evaluation Criteria CONSTRAINTS AND GROWTH Constraints Index - Physical factors, such as crossing Lady Bird Lake, that can significantly affect the cost of a project in that sub-corridor Growth Index - How much growth in population and employment is anticipated in each sub- corridor 40
Evaluation Criteria CORE Affordability Index An indication of where household affordability is most at risk and needs to be protected Economic Development Index - Economic growth potential based on anticipated increase in development and sales and property tax revenue from new development 41
Evaluation Criteria CENTERS Centers Index - Are there lots of areas in this sub-corridor that are planned to be transit friendly in our City s comprehensive plan, Imagine Austin? Consistency Index - Would putting transit in this corridor be in agreement with local plans and policies? 42
Evaluation Criteria SYSTEM Ridership Potential An estimate of future transit ridership in each sub-corridor Connectivity Index How easy would it be to connect to other transit in this sub-corridor corridor-- --existing and planned? Transit Demand Index - An estimate of current transit ridership in each sub-corridor 43
How important are each of these criteria? Table Discussion (5 Minutes) Rate importance of each 44
Congestion Index A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 45
Travel Demand Index A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 46
Constraints Index A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 47
Growth Index A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 48
Affordability Index A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 49
Economic Development Index A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 50
Centers Index A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 51
Consistency Index A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 52
Ridership Potential A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 53
Connectivity Index A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 54
Transit Demand Index A. Very Important B. Moderately Important C. Neutral D. Moderately Unimportant E. Unimportant 55
Evaluation Process Collect Pertinent Data Graphic Representation of Key Data Develop Evaluation Matrix Develop Criteria (Indices) Public Input on Evaluation Recommendation 56
Evaluation Matrix DRAFT 57
Preliminary Sub-Corridor Data 58
Preliminary Sub-Corridor Data Congestion Congestion Index Travel Demand Index 59 West Austin MoPac Lamar Highland Mueller MLK East Austin ERC SoCo SoLa
Preliminary Sub-Corridor Data 60
Preliminary Sub-Corridor Data Core Affordability Index Economic Development Index 61 West Austin MoPac Lamar Highland Mueller MLK East Austin ERC SoCo SoLa
Preliminary Sub-Corridor Data Centers Centers Index Consistency With Plans 62 West Austin MoPac Lamar Highland Mueller MLK East Austin ERC SoCo SoLa
Preliminary Sub-Corridor Data System Ridership Potential Connectivity Index Transit Demand Index 63 West Austin MoPac Lamar Highland Mueller MLK East Austin ERC SoCo SoLa
Evaluation Process Collect Pertinent Data Graphic Representation of Key Data Develop Evaluation Matrix Develop Criteria (Indices) Public Input on Evaluation Recommendation 64
The process used to evaluate subcorridors is appropriate. A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Neutral D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree 65
Now that you have seen more data Which sub-corridor should we prioritize for our community s next transit investment? Why? Table Discussion (5 Minutes) 66
Which sub-corridor should we prioritize for our community's next transit investment? A. East Riverside (ERC) B. East Austin C. MLK D. Mueller E. Highland F. Lamar G. Mopac H. West Austin I. SoLa J. SoCo 67
Next Steps Continue public involvement Complete data collection and evaluation matrix Consider public and stakeholder input to develop Team recommendation Present Team recommendation and public input to Central Corridor Advisory Group (11/15) CCAG action on sub-corridor recommendation (December) Brief Council & Capital Metro Board (December) 68
I found this workshop to be useful. A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Neutral D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree 69
STAY INVOLVED! Please complete Exit Survey Leave Clicker on table 70
More Information Project Connect & Central Corridor HCT Study projectconnect.com 71