Preliminary Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluation Memorandum - CapMetro - Austin Public Transit · 2017-05-15 · develop and operate the system. This project focuses on enhancements to

Preliminary Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluation

Memorandum

April 2017

May 2017 Version 2

TABLE OF REVISIONS

Document: Draft Enhancement Project and Investment Corridor Identification Methodology Memorandum

Version Date Issued Description of Revision Affected Section(s) Page #s

V2 5/10/2017

• Document updated as a result of feedback from theApril 26th TAC/MCAC meetings

• Regional Equity is now called Regional Connectivity 3.1 & 4.2 6, 16-18 • Airport Boulevard now received a MEDIUM for

Regional Connectivity• Airport Boulevard is a Tier 1 Project 4 and 5 13,14-16 • MLK Jr. was mislabeled as a Tier 2, it was a Tier 1 and

this has been corrected.14,16,19 4 and 5

4

Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluation May 2017 (v2)

Doc Control# 436.07

Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Area, Context and Description ....................................................................................................... 1

2. Phase 1 Evaluation Overview ............................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Quantitative Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Qualitative Approach .................................................................................................................................. 5

3. Qualitative Evaluation Methodologies and Results ............................................................................................ 6

3.1 Regional Connectivity ................................................................................................................................ 6

3.1.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Funding Opportunities ................................................................................................................................ 6

3.2.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Special Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 7

3.3.1 Operational Considerations ................................................................................................................ 8

3.3.2 Constructability Considerations .......................................................................................................... 9

3.3.3 Right-of-Way Ownership .................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.4 Development Considerations ........................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Community Support ................................................................................................................................. 10

3.4.1 Investment Corridors Methodology .................................................................................................. 10

3.4.2 Enhancement Project Methodology ................................................................................................. 11

4. Phase 1 Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................................. 13

4.1 Quantitative Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Qualitative Evaluation Results ................................................................................................................. 15

5. Phase 1 Results ............................................................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Final Tier 1 Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects ................................................................ 19

5.2 Additional Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 20

Appendix A: Project Connect Alternative Evaluation Framework

Appendix B: Phase 1 Quantitative Evaluation Summary

Appendix C: Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluation Detail Results

Appendix D: Online Engagement Tool – Enhancement Project Public Comment Analysis

Appendix E: Online Engagement Tool – Investment Corridor Survey Results


Doc Control# 436.07

List of Figures Figure 1: 2010 Average Daily Trips between Study and Focus Areas ...................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Phase 1 Evaluation Process ....................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3: Access, Connect, Ride (A-C-R) Objectives .............................................................................................. 11

Figure 4: Qualitative Evaluation and Final Tier Process .......................................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Phase 1 Recommendation Approval Process .......................................................................................... 20

List of Tables Table 1: Phase1 Quantitative Evaluation Scoring ..................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Preliminary Tier 1 Investment Corridors .................................................................................................... 14

Table 3: Preliminary Tier 1 Enhancement Projects.................................................................................................. 14

Table 4: Phase 1 Qualitative Results – Investment Corridors ................................................................................. 16 Table 5: Phase 1 Qualitative Results – Enhancement Projects .............................................................................. 17

Table 6: (Draft) Final Tier 1 Investment Corridors ................................................................................................... 19

Table 7: (Draft) Final Tier 1 Enhancement Projects ................................................................................................ 19


1 Doc Control# 436.07

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Area, Context and Description

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 community members and stakeholders to define how transit should evolve in the region, how the system and expansions would be financed, and what regional partners could be organized to develop and operate the system. This project focuses on enhancements to transit services and infrastructure that would improve existing high-capacity transit services (MetroRail, MetroRapid and MetroExpress). Additionally, corridors are being examined for their suitability for future/additional high-capacity transit options.

Today, Project Connect has a defined Focus Area in Central Austin that is bounded by US 183 to the north and east, MoPac Expressway (SH 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 (next page) displays the mutual relationship between the Study Area and the Focus Area as approximately 41% of daily trips in the region occur between the Study Area and 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 the communities, agencies and municipalities’ partners who make up the mobility partnership of Project Connect. It is clear that a comprehensive set of mobility solutions is needed to support and sustain the continued success of the region.

Since the late 1990’s, Central Texas has been studying opportunities to implement high-capacity transit service in the region. Project Connect began the Phase 1 process by reviewing all of the locally adopted or community supported transportation plans that identify potential high-capacity transit projects.



Figure 1: 2010 Average Daily Trips between Study and Focus Areas



2. Phase 1 Evaluation Overview

The Project Connect Phase 1 evaluation process is structured to identify the Enhancement Projects that would have the greatest benefit to the existing high-capacity transit system and the Investment Corridors most appropriate for new high-capacity transit service. Phase 1 involved a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors to determine top-performing Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects. This balanced approach helps both data driven items like population or employment to receive the same weight as community preferences (i.e. needs that cannot be expressed solely through data analysis).

The end result of the evaluation will be a refined set of priority corridors and projects (a mixture of investments and enhancements) that will be recommended for Phase 2 of Project Connect. The goal through this two-pronged process of quantitative and qualitative analysis is to move implementable projects to Phase 2 where Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines will be used to help select the appropriate vehicle technology (mode) and necessary alignment alternatives.

The process of Phase 1 is found in Figure 2, below.

Figure 2: Phase 1 Evaluation Process



Project Connect established five (5) goals to measure how well a Project or Corridor meets the purpose of developing high-capacity transit solutions into, out of and within Central Austin.

Customer Experience of Capital Metro transit users

Reliability of high-capacity transit services

Sustainability and equity of high-capacity transit services

Transit supportive Land Use and Policy agreements in the region

Opportunities supporting Implementation and Operations of high-capacity transit

The Phase 1 evaluation process developed specific evaluation criteria within each of the goals in order to analyze data sources and performance metrics. Four of the five project goals (Customer Experience, Reliability, Sustainability, Land Use & Policy) were linked to the quantitative analysis, and the goal of Implementation and Operations was assessed qualitatively.

2.1 Quantitative Evaluation

The first step of the Phase 1 evaluation was a quantitative data-driven process, consistent with FTA guidelines. The Corridors and Projects were compared against each other within their respective Market Types and Service Types in order to identify the top performers with potential to advance to Phase 2.

It primarily used data collected within a half-mile of the Corridor routes and Project locations/routes. This buffer was chosen to be consistent with FTA guidelines and represents the typical distance a person is willing to walk to high-capacity transit. Due to the varying length and sizes of the Projects and Corridors, the project team chose to normalize the data either on a linear mile basis (for Investment Corridors and MetroExpress enhancement projects) or by a per square mile basis (remaining Enhancement Projects). All demographic criteria (population, employment and service equity) were normalized on a per square mile basis.

The evaluation also quantified the potential benefits to the existing Project Connect high-capacity transit system: Mobility Hubs, MetroRail, MetroRapid and MetroExpress services. The baseline Capital Metro transit service assumed for this evaluation was consistent with the recommendations of the Connections 2025 5-year service plan update.

Each of the four quantitative goals were assigned a value of 25 points, for a maximum score of 100 points. The goals were equally weighted to demonstrate that all Project Connect goals are equally important. Within each goal, the points were further distributed to the individual criteria as described in Table 1. Point distributions are based on relative importance to overall project implementation success for dedicated, high-capacity transit services and facilities.

Table 1: Phase1 Quantitative Evaluation Scoring

Point Value Goal Criteria

25 Customer Experience Impact on Existing Riders Network / System Compatibility

25 Reliability Transit Travel Time and On-Time Performance Guideway

25 Sustainability Environmental Factors Service Equity

25 Land Use and Policy

Existing population and employment Future population and employment Economic Development and Land Use Activity Centers

100 Maximum Score



A perfect-scoring project could accrue 100 total points. For each individual criteria, the best-performing Corridor or Project received the maximum number of points available. The scores of all successive Corridors and Projects pivot down from that highest-scoring Corridor or Project based on how closely they compared with the top performer. The points were then added across the criteria for each Project and Corridor to calculate a total score. Corridors and Projects were rated as Tier 1, 2, or 3 based on natural breakpoints in the scored data.

Preliminary Rating Investment Corridors Enhancement Projects

Tier 1 Strongly supports dedicated high-capacity transit services and facilities

Highly benefits existing high-capacity transit services

Tier 2 Moderately supports dedicated high-capacity transit services and facilities

Moderately benefits existing high-capacity transit services

Tier 3 Minimal support for dedicated high-capacity transit services and facilities

Minimal benefits to existing high-capacity transit services

Appendix A includes summary results of the Phase 1 quantitative evaluation for reference. Additional detail of the quantitative evaluation criteria, methodologies, calculation of scores and results are included within the Draft Phase 1 Evaluation Methodology memorandum (February 2017).

2.2 Qualitative Approach

The second step of the Phase 1 evaluation was a qualitative (judgement-based) analysis, which was designed to capture project characteristics or elements that were not reflected in the quantitative analysis, and that links the evaluation process to the fifth project goal (Implementation and Operations).

This step presented the opportunity to shift projects to different tiers based on the results of the qualitative analysis– so a project that may have been in the highest tier, Tier 1, after the quantitative analysis may have a project characteristic or element that indicated it should move it into Tier 2.

The following sections describe the qualitative evaluation criteria and the results of the process. The outcome of the qualitative evaluation is a list of Corridors and Projects that are recommended to be advanced into Phase 2 (detailed definition and evaluation) of Project Connect.



3. Qualitative Evaluation Methodologies and Results

The Phase 1 qualitative evaluation criteria were developed to capture potential benefits/costs, challenges and opportunities associated with implementation of the proposed Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects that may not have been captured during the quantitative phase of the evaluation. The metrics and measures that were used for this evaluation are based on existing, observed conditions rather than the data-driven metrics and measures used during the quantitative evaluation.

3.1 Regional Connectivity

Recently adopted local planning initiatives such as the CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan have identified existing and emerging residential, employment and activity centers. The Regional Connectivity criterion analyzed how well the proposed Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects may improve or establish transit connectivity between regional activity centers and the Central Austin Focus Area. This analysis reviewed activity centers in the region but aimed to analyze regional connectivity by reviewing high-capacity transit connections between the downtown core and activity centers in other locations.

3.1.1 Methodology

Investment Corridors were measured based on the corridor’s connectivity between regional centers and the Focus area. Enhancement Projects were measured based on whether they were supportive of existing services that operated exclusively within the Focus Area or connected regional activity centers to the focus area.

The Corridors and Projects were then ranked High, Medium, and Low based on the number of regional activity centers that were connected to the downtown core and the presence of existing high-capacity transit routes. Regional Activity Centers are activity centers, as outlined in the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan and the CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan, are activity centers outside the downtown core – they can include activity centers within the limits of the City of Austin such as The Domain activity center.

Score Regional Connectivity Definitions

High Project or Corridor supports regional high-capacity transit service between emerging

regional centers and Central Austin/the downtown core.

Medium

Project or Corridor supports regional high-capacity transit services between emergingregional centers. This ranking also includes projects that only serve the downtown core.These Projects or Corridors do not provide direct connections between regional centersand the downtown core but would still contribute to an extensive regional network.

Low Project or Corridor supports inter-local high-capacity transit services.

The Regional Connectivity criterion evaluation utilized existing regulatory guidelines and program policy guidance derived from the CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (2015) and the City of Austin’s Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan (2012). Existing Capital Metro service routes were also used in the analysis.

3.2 Funding Opportunities

The Funding Opportunity evaluation criterion belongs to the Project Goal of supporting Implementation and Operations by focusing on the project’s ability to qualify for (and receive) capital funding or sustainable revenue sources. The Funding Opportunity criterion takes a broad perspective of available funding sources to evaluate each project’s ability to obtain funding at local, state, and federal levels as well as the private sector.

3.2.1 Methodology

The evaluation assesses each project’s Eligibility and Competitiveness for four categories of project funding: local, private, state, and federal.



Eligibility: The Corridor or Project’s scope, asset type(s), and geographic location align with statutory or

programmatic requirements for funding

Competitiveness: The Corridor or Project’s scope, asset type(s), and geographic location advance the

goals of the funding/financing program and represent an attractive source for investment

To address this broad perspective, the evaluation process considers the project’s type (including all possible modes under consideration for Investment Corridors), the project’s scope and length, and the mix of land uses in the corridor in which the project is located. Based on these factors, the Corridor or Project is then evaluated based on its programmatic eligibility for different funding and financing programs, and then its competitiveness for these programs based on the potential level of service impacts.

Each Project and Corridor was assessed (Low, Medium, or High) for potential eligibility for local or CMTA general revenue funding and competitiveness/ eligibility for local, private, state, or federal funding. The following section details programs and mechanisms evaluated under each funding and financing categories.

Score Funding Opportunity Definitions

High Strongly supports local planning efforts and transit system operating efficiency,

Likely to meet eligibility thresholds for funding local state and/or federal mechanisms

Medium Moderately supports local planning efforts and transit system operating efficiency,

Meets some eligibility thresholds for funding local state and/or federal mechanisms

Low Somewhat supports local planning efforts and transit system operating efficiency,

Meets few eligibility thresholds for funding local state and/or federal mechanisms

See Appendix C for a detailed description of the assessment of local, state, federal and private funding opportunities.

3.3 Special Considerations

The Special Considerations criterion is designed to capture any characteristics of a Corridor or Project that may not be captured by the quantitative evaluation criteria, but which may affect overall implementation viability. Members of the project technical team coordinated with Capital Metro staff on the identification of these special considerations. Primary considerations included:

1. Operational considerations

Eligibility and Competitiveness

Local

Private

State

Federal



a. For Investment Corridors: achievement of independent utility (corridors)b. For Enhancement Projects: number of types of Enhancements addressed by project (Access,

Connect, Ride) (see Figure 3 in Section 3.4.2)2. Constructability considerations

a. Presence of natural and physical barriers3. Policy and jurisdictional coordination considerations

a. ROW ownership (Capital Metro, public or private)4. Land use considerations

a. Presence of recently built or ongoing transit-supportive development not reflected in quantitativedata

The team assigned a score of “High,” “Medium,” or “Low” for each consideration, and then assigned an overall score to each Corridor or Project depending on the individual consideration scores. The following sections describe the process for assigning scores for each consideration.

3.3.1 Operational Considerations

Federal regulations require transportation studies that follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated. 23 CFR 771.111(f) requires projects to:

1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope;2. Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure

even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and 3. Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.

According to the (United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), logical termini for project development are defined as rational end points for both a transportation improvement and a review of the environmental impacts. Per USDOT:

“In developing a concept that can be advanced through the stages of planning, environment, design, and construction, the project sponsor needs to consider a "whole" or integrated action. This action should satisfy an identified need, such as safety, rehabilitation, economic development, or capacity improvement. In addition, the action should be considered in the context of local socio-economics and topography, future travel demand, and other infrastructure improvements. Without framing an action in this way, project sponsors may only peripherally meet project needs or may cause unexpected side effects that require additional corrective action. Project sponsors should also be aware of the problem of "segmentation." Segmentation may occur when a transportation need extends throughout an entire corridor, but project sponsors discuss the environmental issues and transportation need of only a segment of the corridor.”

1

Corridors where rated High, Medium, or Low based on their “independent utility” and “logical termini” if it either:

Connected a logical terminus within the focus area to or through the Downtown Core (CBD, Capitol, UT); or

Connected two major activity centers at both endpoints

Project Connect Enhancement Projects, by nature, are modifications to existing high-capacity transit services. By this fact, the Operational Consideration metric of independent utility is not applicable to qualitative evaluation. However, Phase 1 evaluation of Enhancement Projects is focused on identification of the priority locations and services that may be improved by Projects that seek to improve quality of Access to, Connections to and the Ride experience of existing high-capacity services.

Access - improves how riders get to Cap Metro bus stops and rail stations – whether by foot,bike, or car

1 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Environmental Review Toolkit, “NEPA and Transportation Decision making”



Connect - improves how riders get onto Cap Metro buses and trains (hubs, stations and stops)

Ride - improves the transit ride itself by reducing delays, increasing transit speed, and makingtransit service more reliable

The qualitative evaluation of Enhancement Projects assesses how many Enhancement Project types (Access, Connect, Ride) are satisfied by the proposed Project. The following table describes how Corridors and Projects were scored for operational considerations:

Score Investment Corridors Enhancement Projects

High Corridor could independent utility if logically extended Addresses all enhancement A-C-R types

Medium Corridor could have independent utility if combined with another corridor

Addresses two (2) enhancement A-C-R types

Low Corridor does not have independent utility Addresses one (1) enhancement A-C-R type

3.3.2 Constructability Considerations

The Project Connect team explored constructability by examining the presence of physical barriers along each Corridor that could influence the need for grade separation depending on the transit mode. The barriers considered in this evaluation are:

Major waterways (e.g. Lady Bird Lake)

Major freeways (e.g. IH 35)

Freight railroads (where Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requires grade separation formany HCT modes)

These barriers typically require more expensive or technically challenging implementation methods to overcome. Corridors were scored based on the following criteria:

Score Investment Corridors Enhancement Projects

High No barriers to implementation No barriers to implementation

Medium Corridor crosses a major freeway Presence of potential barriers, potentially mitigated

Low Corridor crosses either a freight rail line or a major waterway

Presence of potentially significant barriers, unmitigated or cost/construction prohibitive

3.3.3 Right-of-Way Ownership

The Project Connect team identified that right-of-way and jurisdictional ownership could pose coordination challenges or require policy changes to facilitate implementation of high-capacity transit within each Corridor or Project. Projects or Corridors located along ROW owned by Capital Metro face significantly fewer coordination challenges than those located along other public ROW, while Projects or Corridors located along or within ROW owned by private entities face significant challenges to implementation. The scoring for each policy/coordination consideration is outlined in the following table:

Score ROW Ownership

High CMTA owned ROW

Medium Public Agency owned ROW

Low Privately owned ROW



3.3.4 Development Considerations

While the quantitative assessment explored several facets of land use, including demographics, the project team acknowledged that the reliance on demographic data from the travel demand model (TDM) and the disparity in land use designations and detail available from each jurisdiction in the Study Area may not adequately capture all transit-supportive land use, either present or underway, within each Corridor. The team conducted a qualitative assessment to inventory transit-supportive (i.e. multistory, mixed-use and/or high density) developments along or near corridors that met the following criteria:

Recently built (2010 or later)

Under construction

Development plans, permitting and/or final approvals underway

Corridors and projects were assigned scores (High/Medium/Low) depending on the number of projects identified compared to other Corridors within the same market or project type, with higher weight being applied to projects that were recently built or under construction. The final score also considered whether the Corridor served areas with transit-supportive regulations or plans in place, including Downtown, the 118 acre development initiative along Lady Bird Lake called the South Central Waterfront district, and areas with TOD or High Density MU zoning. Appendix C includes an inventory of transit-supportive developments included in the qualitative assessment.

3.4 Community Support

The Community Support evaluation criterion corresponds to the Project Connect goal of selecting projects that have local support for implementation and continued operations. Community preference is a key component of the qualitative evaluation of potential Enhancement Projects and Investment Corridors because the comments provide uniquely important insight into the public need for potential projects/corridors by bringing to light factors that “raw numbers” can’t uncover.

To analyze community support for both Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects, the project team used an Online Engagement Tool that features exercises designed to facilitate public feedback through preferential surveys and interactive maps. All feedback was logged in the Project Connect Comment Management Database (CMD). Community support for Enhancement Projects also considered feedback submitted through hard-copy and mapping activities conducted during the City of Austin Strategic Mobility Plan/Project Connect joint “Traffic Jam” public outreach event conducted at the Bob Bullock Museum on March 4, 2017, as well as subsequent engagement meetings conducted during March, April, and May at council district town halls, neighborhood association meetings and community organization meetings.

3.4.1 Investment Corridors Methodology

The Investment Corridors are organized into three different categories, based on the trip type they serve (Commuter, Connector or Circulator). Project Connect has currently identified six Commuter Corridors, nineteen Connector Corridors, and four Circulator Corridors for potential new high-capacity transit services. Preferential survey questions were presented to the community at public engagement activities and on the Project Connect website; respondents were asked to identify their preferred Commuter, Connector, and Circulator Corridors, as outlined below:

Which of these COMMUTER corridors would you support to meet the needs of the community?

(Choose 3.)

Which of these CONNECTOR corridors would you support to meet the needs of the community?

(Choose 5.)

Which of these CIRCULATOR corridors would you support to meet the needs of the community?

(Choose 2.)



The results were tabulated and then compared against the results from other Corridors within the same market

type to determine a High/Medium/Low score.

3.4.2 Enhancement Project Methodology

The process for assigning community support scores for the Enhancement Projects differed slightly from the Investment Corridors due to the unique, site-specific or mode-specific nature of the Projects. These Projects also represent various infrastructure, technology and operational components to support existing MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress and Mobility Hub services that do not lend themselves to easy consideration by members of the public. Consequently, the potential benefits of preliminary Enhancement Projects were catalogued into three distinct categories (Access, Connect, Ride), which correlate with the three phases of a user’s transit trip -- in which a rider interacts with the transit system (see Figure 3).

Public feedback for these three categories of Projects was solicited at in-person workshops and later assigned to particular Projects based on the location and type of Enhancement identified in the feedback. Online survey responses were more directly tied to specific Enhancement Projects. In general, the community support criterion relied on the following sources of data:

Comment Cards from March 4th workshop

Georeferenced stickers from March 4th Workshop

Online Survey

Figure 3: Access, Connect, Ride (A-C-R) Objectives

Projects that improves how riders get to Cap Metro bus stops and rail stations – whether by foot, bike, or car. Expansion or extension of services to new areas.

Projects that improve how riders get onto Cap Metro buses and trains – including station amenities and capacity, fare payment, and intermodal connection improvements.

Projects that improve the transit ride itself – by reducing delays, increasing transit speed, and making transit service more reliable

The final documentation of Enhancement Project comments was compiled in a master Excel database. When applicable, comments that were not related to specific online engagement tool locations were assigned to Enhancement Projects based on their Access/Connect/Ride type, zone assignment, and/or comment text. The compiled data set allowed the project team to directly relate comments either to specific Phase 1 Enhancement Projects, or to further categorize the information within the comment record to identify additional locations or overarching themes about where improvements are needed.

For the purposes of Phase 1 qualitative evaluation, the Community Support score presented, only considers the results related to the defined list of Phase 1 Enhancement Projects. See Appendix D for further information



regarding complete results of the Phase 1 Online Engagement Surveys.

The total count of comments supportive of specific Enhancement Projects were tabulated and then compared against the results from other Projects within the same service type (MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, Mobility Hub) to determine a High/Medium/Low score.



4. Phase 1 Evaluation Results

Project Connect established five (5) goals to measure how well a Project or Corridor meets the purpose of developing high-capacity transit solutions into, out of and within Central Austin. The Phase 1 evaluation process developed specific evaluation criteria within the goals of improving the:

Customer Experience of Capital Metro transit users

Reliability of high-capacity transit services

Sustainability and equity of high-capacity transit services

Transit supportive Land Use and Policy agreements in the region

Opportunities supporting Implementation and Operation of high-capacity transit.

The list of Corridors and Projects2 was categorized based on their similar characteristics as described below:

Investment Corridor Market Types Enhancement Project Service Types

Circulator MetroRail

Commuter MetroRapid

Connector MetroExpress

Mobility Hub

This Phase 1 comparative analysis was conducted in two steps. The first step of the Phase 1 evaluation is a quantitative (numbers-based) analysis of Customer Experience, Reliability, Sustainability, Land Use and Policy. The second step assessed the potential of less-tangible issues presenting challenges, risks and/or benefits towards Implementing and Operating high-capacity transit solutions. Detailed description of the quantitative evaluation criteria, methodologies and results are included within the Draft Phase 1 Evaluation Methodology memorandum (February 2017).

The Phase 1 evaluation process will rate the Corridors and Projects in Tiers (1, 2, 3), representing its potential readiness for and benefits of implementation. At the end of the Phase 1 evaluation process, only the Tier 1 Corridors and will advance to Phase 2.

4.1 Quantitative Evaluation Results

The quantitative analysis performed in Phase 1 identified the potential Enhancement Projects and Investment Corridors with the greatest potential or utility supporting high-capacity transit improvements. The quantitative evaluation consisted of ten (10) individual criteria, representing the four quantitative goals. Each goal was assigned a 25-point value, for a maximum score of 100 points. Based on natural break points in the cumulative scoring, the Corridors and Projects were identified as Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 performers. The high and moderately performing (Tier 1 and Tier 2) Corridors and Projects have the potential to advance to Phase 2, where they will be defined in detail for alternatives analysis.

2 Draft Enhancement Project and Investment Corridor Identification Methodology (Jan 2017)



Table 2: Preliminary Tier 1 Investment Corridors

Circulator Commuter Connector ID Name ID Name ID Name

22 21

Red River S Congress

25 28

IH 35 Metrorail Red Line (double track)

12 16 14 4

15 10 18 13

N Lamar / Guadalupe Highland / Red River / Trinity Oltorf 15th Pleasant Valley Congress Riverside MLK Jr.

Table 3: Preliminary Tier 1 Enhancement Projects

MetroRail MetroRapid

ML 1 Rail Station Capacity Projects MD 9 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) - Activate TSP

MD 5 S 1st St - Priority treatments

MD 6 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) - Extend existing TPLs

MD 8 W. MLK Jr Blvd (Guadalupe / Lavaca) - Intersection upgrades

MetroExpress Mobility Hubs ME 3 35th St, Mopac - Guadalupe MH 2 W 4th St (Republic Square) ME 7 US 183 (N) MH 3 W 4th Street

ME 2 W. 5th St & W. Cesar Chavez, Mopac - Guadalupe MH 9 North Lamar T.C.

MH 6 Tech Ride P&R MH 1 W 4th St (DT MR Station) MH 21 Rundberg MH 11 Leander Station



4.2 Qualitative Evaluation Results All Implementation and Operations evaluation criteria were scored on a High/Medium/Low scale based on the relative fulfillment of the four evaluation criteria: regional connectivity, special considerations, community support, and funding opportunities. In order to make a summary recommendation for whether a Project or Corridor would move up or down a tier based on these scores, the scores for each criterion were converted to numbers based on the following scale:

• High – supports moving Project/Corridor up tier (+1) • Medium – supports keeping Project/Corridor at same tier (0) • Low – supports moving Project/Corridor down tier (-1)

Figure 4, below, illustrates how the qualitative evaluation process affects the Final Tier. The converted scores for each criterion were added together, and the resulting numerical scores were converted back to High/Medium/Low based on the breakpoints within each Corridor or Project type. The summary recommendation ultimately determines the final recommended tier for each Project or Corridor. Projects and Corridors assigned to Tier 1 after considering the qualitative evaluation results are recommended for detailed evaluation during Phase 2 of Project Connect. Table 4 through Table 5 on the following pages review the overall qualitative scoring results for the Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects. More detailed background documentation of the individual qualitative scores can be found in Appendix C.

Figure 4: Qualitative Evaluation and Final Tier Process



Table 4: Phase 1 Qualitative Results – Investment Corridors

ID Name PH. 1 Quantitative Score

Preliminary Tier (1, 2, 3)

Regional Connectivity Community Support Funding Opportunities Special Considerations Qualitative Rating Final Tier

Connector Corridors 12 N Lamar / Guadalupe 80.0 1 High High High Medium High 1 16 Highland / Red River / Trinity 65.3 1 High High High Medium High 1 14 Oltorf 64.8 1 Low Low Low Low Low 2

4 15th 62.2 1 Medium Low Medium Low Low 2 15 Pleasant Valley 62.0 1 Medium Low Low Low Low 2 10 Congress 61.5 1 High High High Medium High 1 18 Riverside 60.3 1 High High High Medium High 1 13 MLK Jr. 59.5 1 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium 1

7 Airport Blvd 56.4 2 Medium High High Medium High 1 3 7th / Lake Austin 56.2 2 Medium High High High High 1

17 Manor / Dean Keeton 55.8 2 Medium High High Medium High 1 9 Cesar Chavez 53.0 2 Medium Medium High Medium Medium 2

19 45th / Burnet 52.5 2 Medium High Medium High High 1 11 S Lamar 51.2 2 High High Medium High High 1

2 S 1st St 49.4 3 Medium Medium Low Medium Medium 3 5 35th / 38th 47.6 3 Low Low Medium Medium Low 3 6 51st 46.2 3 Low Medium Medium Low Low 3 1 E 12th St 44.8 3 Medium Low Medium Medium Medium 3 8 Bergstrom Spur 38.0 3 Low Medium High Low Medium 3

Circulator Corridors 22 Red River Circulator 81.8 1 Medium Low High High Medium 1 21 S Congress Circulator 73.2 1 Medium High Medium Medium Medium 1 20 Downtown Circulator 67.5 2 Medium High High High High 1 29 Domain Circulator 50.8 2 Medium Low High High Medium 2

Commuter Corridors 25 IH 35 88.9 1 High High Medium Medium High 1 28 Red Line (double track) 72.9 1 High Medium Medium High High 1 23 Airport Line 59.2 2 High Medium High Low Medium 2 24 MoKan Line 47.0 2 High Low Medium Low Medium 2 26 Green Line 45.7 2 High Low High High High 1 27 UPRR 44.4 2 High High Low Low Medium 2



Table 5: Phase 1 Qualitative Results – Enhancement Projects

ID Name PH. 1 Quantitative

Score Preliminary Tier

(1, 2, 3) Regional

Connectivity Community Support Funding Opportunities Special Considerations Qualitative Rating Final Tier

Metro Rapid Enhancements

MD 9 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) - Activate TSP 82.0 1 Medium Medium High Medium Medium 1

MD 5 S 1st St - Priority treatments 81.2 1 Medium Low Medium Medium Medium 1

MD 6 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) - Extend existing TPLs

77.2 1 Medium Low High Medium Medium 1

MD 8 W. MLK Jr Blvd (Guadalupe / Lavaca) -Intersection upgrades

73.7 1 Medium Low Medium Medium Medium 1

MD 10 N Lamar Blvd (Crestview) - Intersection upgrades 65.7 2 Medium Medium Medium High Medium 2

MD 7 Guadalupe St (The Drag) - Priority treatments 63.5 2 Medium Low High Medium Medium 2

MD 4 W Riverside Dr - Priority treatments 61.0 2 Medium Low Medium High Medium 2

MD 2 S Congress Ave - Priority treatments 50.6 3 Medium High Medium High Medium 3

MD 3 Barton Springs Rd - Priority treatments 49.9 3 Medium Low Medium Medium Medium 3

MD 1 S Lamar Blvd - Priority treatments 43.4 3 Medium Medium Medium High Medium 3

Metro Express Enhancements

ME 3 35th St, Mopac - Guadalupe 59.7 1 Low Low Medium Low Low 2

ME 7 US 183 (N) 58.2 1 High Low Low Medium Medium 1

ME 2 W. 5th St & W. Cesar Chavez, Mopac - Guadalupe 55.0 1 Medium Low High Low Medium 1

ME 6 US 290 E 49.2 2 High Medium Low Medium Low 3

ME 1 MoPac (N) 42.9 3 High Low Medium Medium Low 3

ME 4 MoPac (S) 41.8 3 High Low Medium Medium Low 3

ME 5 US 290 W 39.7 3 High Medium Medium Medium Medium 3

Metro Rail Enhancements

ML 1 Rail Station Capacity Projects 87.6 1 High High High High Medium 1

ML 6 Proposed Hancock Station 53.6 2 Medium Low Medium High Medium 2

ML 2 Passing Siding 52.6 2 High Low High Medium Medium 2

ML 4 Proposed Highland Station 47.1 3 High Low Medium High Medium 3

ML 3 Proposed Domain / Broadmoor Station 43.1 3 Medium Medium High High High 2

ML 5 Proposed Braker Station 41.1 3 Medium Medium Low High Medium 3

Mobility Hub Enhancements

MH 2 W 4th St (Republic Square) 75.1 1 Medium Low High Medium Medium 1

MH 3 W 4th Street 57.7 1 Low Low High Medium Medium 1

MH 9 North Lamar T.C. 57.0 1 Low Low High Medium Medium 1

MH 6 Tech Ride P&R 51.9 1 Medium Low Low Medium Low 2

MH 1 W 4th St (DT MR Station) 51.7 1 High Low High Medium Medium 1

MH 21 Rundberg 50.8 1 Low Low Medium Medium Low 2

MH 11 Leander Station 49.7 1 High Low Low High Medium 1

MH 10 Westgate T.C. 48.5 1 Medium Medium High Medium Medium 1

MH 4 Crestview 48.0 1 High High High Medium High 1

MH 17 South Lamar 45.4 2 Medium Low High Medium Medium 2

MH 12 South Congress T.C. 44.3 2 Medium Low High Medium Medium 2

MH 18 Elgin P&R 43.9 2 Medium Low Low Low Low 3

MH 13 Highland 43.7 2 Medium Low High High Medium 2

MH 7 Lakeline Station 43.7 2 High Medium Low High Medium 2

MH 8 Howard P&R 43.4 2 High Medium Low High Medium 2

MH 14 UT Austin 43.1 2 Medium Medium High Medium Medium 2

MH 15 Southpark Meadows 43.0 2 Medium Medium High Medium Medium 2

MH 16 Kramer 41.9 2 Medium High Medium High Medium 2

MH 20 Pavilion P&R 39.0 3 Medium Low Medium Medium Medium 3



ID Name PH. 1 Quantitative

Score Preliminary Tier

(1, 2, 3) Regional

Connectivity Community Support Funding Opportunities Special Considerations Qualitative Rating Final Tier

MH 22 Anderson 38.5 3 Medium Low Medium Medium Medium 3

MH 23 The Domain 36.0 3 Low High High Medium Medium 3

MH 5 Domain 33.5 3 Medium High Low Medium Medium 3

MH 19 Manor Walmart 31.8 3 Low Low Medium Medium Low 3



5. Phase 1 Results

5.1 Final Tier 1 Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects Based on the results from the quantitative and qualitative analyses performed during the Phase 1 evaluation, 16 Investment Corridors and 13 Enhancement Projects are rated in Tier 1 and recommended to advance to Phase 2. The final Tier 1 recommendations will be determined following the completion of the Phase 1 public comment period and calculating final Community Support rating of Corridors and Projects. The current set of draft Tier 1 evaluation results are presented in Table 6 and Table 7.

Table 6: (Draft) Final Tier 1 Investment Corridors

Circulator Commuter Connector ID Name ID Name ID Name

22 21 20

Red River S Congress Downtown Circulator

25 28 26

IH 35 Metrorail Red Line (double track) Green Line

12 16 10 18 13 7 3

17 19 11

N Lamar / Guadalupe Highland / Red River / Trinity Congress Riverside MLK Jr. Airport Blvd 7th / Lake Austin Manor / Dean Keeton 45th / Burnet S Lamar

Table 7: (Draft) Final Tier 1 Enhancement Projects

MetroRail MetroExpress

ML 1 Rail Station Capacity Projects ME 3 W. 5th St & W. Cesar Chavez, (Mopac toGuadalupe) Transit Priority Treatments

MetroRapid Mobility Hubs

MD 9 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) - Activate TSP MH 2 W 4th St (Republic Square)

MD 5 S 1st St - Priority treatments MH 3 W 4th Street

MD 6 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) - Extend existing TPLs MH 9 North Lamar T.C.

MD 8 W. MLK Jr Blvd (Guadalupe / Lavaca)- Intersection upgrades MH 1 W 4th St (DT MR Station)

MH 11 Leander Station MH 10 Westgate T.C. MH 4 Crestview

Figure 5 identifies the Phase 1 approval process that will be followed over the next three months for final approval of recommendations for advancement into Phase 2:



Figure 5: Phase 1 Recommendation Approval Process

5.2 Additional Considerations The inventory of potential Investment Corridors included a comprehensive analysis of all major roadways and rail corridors previously studied for implementation of high-capacity transit. However, there were limitations to the identification of the most appropriate set of Enhancement Projects for detailed development in Phase 2. There were a significant number of Enhancement Project survey results identifying needs outside of the Phase 1 inventory of Projects from previous studies. Due to the volume and nature of these comments regarding additional potential Enhancement Projects, Project Connect will conduct a gap analysis of additional priority Project needs to begin Phase 2. The gap analysis will be based on detailed review of survey results and comments, in combination with the priority Projects identified directly from the Phase 1 evaluation process.


A-1Doc Control# 436.07

Appendix A: Project Connect Alternative Evaluation Framework

Project Connect Phase 1 Evaluation Criteria

and

FTA CIG Project Development Criteria


A-0 Doc Control# 437.2

Goals Possible Points

Project Connect Criteria

Project Connect Evaluation Measure FTA Project Justification

Criteria

25 pts Customer

Experience

15 Impact on existing riders

# of average daily boardings per mile at stops/stations along the Corridor Mobility and Cost Effectiveness

10 Network / system compatibility

# of Connection 2025 routes that the Corridor would connect to (weighted)▲

Mobility and Congestion Relief

25 pts Reliability

10 Transit travel time and on-time performance

Does the majority of the alignment follow an existing Exclusive ROW, Enhanced Arterial, or Frequent Local corridor in Connections 2025? (H = 10; M = 5; L = 1)

Congestion Relief

15 Guideway Weighted assessment available ROW (minimize need for loss of lanes or reconfiguration) ▲ Cost Effectiveness

25 pts Sustainability

10 Environmental factors Assessment of potential impacts to floodplains, wetlands, parks, waterways, and historic resources (NRHP) (H = 1; M = 5; L = 10) Environmental Benefits

15 Service equity # of zero car households; # of households below poverty; # of minority populations per sq mile Environmental Benefits

25 pts Land Use & Policy

10 Existing population and employment

Number of existing residents and jobs per mile within a half-mile of the Corridor Existing Land Use

5 Future population and employment

Number of forecast residents and jobs per mile within a half-mile of the Corridor

Economic Development Effects

5 Economic development and land use

% of land that is transit-supportive; % of publicly-owned land, # of emerging projects

Economic Development Effects

5 Activity centers # of Imagine Austin and CAMPO activity centers served Economic Development Effects

100 max points ▲- Evaluation score weighted based on potentially affected resources


A-1 Doc Control# 437.2

FTA Capital Improvement Grant (CIG) Program -- Evaluation Criteria Minimum Rating of “Medium” required for both project justification and local financial commitment

FTA Project Justification Criteria: What do they measure?


Appendix B: Phase 1 Quantitative Evaluation Summary

B-1 Doc Control# 437.2 You c

Project ConnectDraft Phase 1 Evaluation Results

2/24/2017

Investment Corridors: COMMUTERS

ID Corridor Name Customer Experience Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy TOTAL 1 2 3

25 IH 35 20.2 21.3 25.0 22.4 88.9 28 Red Line (double track) 16.3 25.0 11.7 19.8 72.9

23 Airport Line 19.3 11.5 12.1 16.2 59.2

24 MoKan Line 8.3 16.0 9.7 12.9 47.0 26 Green Line 9.2 17.0 9.2 10.3 45.7 27 UPRR 6.1 16.7 7.3 14.2 44.4

ID Corridor Name Regional Connectivity

Community SupportFunding

Opportunities 1 2 3

25 IH 35 TBD TBD

28 Red Line (double track) TBD TBD

23 Airport Line TBD TBD

24 MoKan Line TBD TBD

26 Green Line TBD TBD

27 UPRR TBD TBD

Tier 1 Projects and Corridors will be defined and prioritized in Project Connect - Phase 2Tier 2 and Tier 3 Projects and Corridors will be recommended for future studyFinal recommendations for Phase 2 analysis will include ALL public feedback (end of March)

Step 2: Qualitative Analysis ‐ Implementation & Operations

Step 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal)Step 1:

Tiered Results

Step 2: Tiered Results

Special Considerations

Doc Control# 436.06

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Project ConnectDraft Phase 1 Evaluation Results

2/24/2017

Investment Corridors: CONNECTORS

ID Corridor NameCustomer Experience

Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy TOTAL 1 2 3 Regional Connectivity

Community Support

Funding Opportunities 1 2 3

12 N Lamar / Guadalupe 25.0 23.7 11.1 20.2 80.0 TBD

16 Highland / Red River / Trinity 16.7 22.4 7.5 18.6 65.3 TBD

14 Oltorf 11.5 21.3 19.7 12.2 64.8 TBD

4 15th 8.2 21.6 15.5 17.0 62.2 TBD

15 Pleasant Valley 9.1 23.1 16.0 13.8 62.0 TBD

10 Congress 10.6 25.0 9.7 16.2 61.5 TBD

18 Riverside 9.5 23.9 14.0 12.9 60.3 TBD

13 MLK Jr. 8.9 22.5 15.9 12.2 59.5 TBD

7 Airport Blvd 8.9 20.6 13.7 13.2 56.4 TBD

3 7th / Lake Austin 13.4 23.2 5.8 13.7 56.2 TBD

17 Manor / Dean Keeton 12.0 20.7 10.1 13.1 55.8 TBD

9 Cesar Chavez 8.7 20.6 9.7 14.0 53.0 TBD

19 45th / Burnet 4.7 22.5 14.9 10.5 52.5 TBD

11 S Lamar 6.3 23.1 10.3 11.5 51.2 TBD

2 S 1st St 6.1 18.2 11.6 13.4 49.4 TBD

5 35th / 38th 4.3 21.5 11.5 10.4 47.6 TBD

6 51st 5.8 16.4 11.2 12.7 46.2 TBD

1 E 12th St 5.9 13.5 12.2 13.2 44.8 TBD

8 Bergstrom Spur 5.7 15.3 9.6 7.5 38.0 TBD


Step 1: Quantitative Analysis Goals Step 1:Tiered Results

Step 2: Qualitative Analysis ‐ Implementation & Operations Step 2: Tiered Results


Doc Control# 436.06

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Project Connect

Draft Phase 1 Evaluation Results

2/24/2017

Investment Corridors: CIRCULATORS

ID Corridor NameCustomer Experience

Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy TOTAL 1 2 3

22 Red River 21.7 18.2 21.0 20.9 81.8

21 S Congress Circulator 9.9 23.7 19.0 20.6 73.2

20 Downtown Circulator 22.0 14.0 10.0 21.5 67.5

29 Domain Circulator 1.8 16.9 19.0 13.1 50.8

ID Corridor Name Regional Connectivity

Community Support

Funding Opportunities

1 2 3

22 Red River TBD

21 S Congress Circulator TBD

20 Downtown Circulator TBD

29 Domain Circulator TBD

Tier 1 Projects and Corridors will be defined and prioritized in Project Connect - Phase 2Tier 2 and Tier 3 Projects and Corridors will be recommended for future study

Final recommendations for Phase 2 analysis will include ALL public feedback (end of March)


Step 2: Qualitative Analysis ‐ Implementation & Operations

Step 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal) Step 1: Tiered Results


Doc Control# 436.06

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Project Connect

Draft Phase 1 Evaluation 2/24/17

Enhancement Projects: MetroRapid

ID Project NameCustomer Experience

Reliability SustainabilityLand Use and

PolicyTOTAL 1 2 3 Regional

ConnectivityCommunity Support


1 2 3

MD 9 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) ‐ Activate TSP 21.8 25.0 20.1 15.1 82.0 TBD TBD

MD 5 S 1st St ‐ Priority treatments 19.7 21.3 19.8 20.5 81.2 TBD TBD

MD 6 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) ‐ Extend existing TPLs 20.6 19.4 20.6 16.6 77.2 TBD TBD

MD 8 W. MLK Jr Blvd (Guadalupe / Lavaca) ‐Intersection upgrades 18.3 19.4 19.0 17.1 73.7 TBD TBD

MD 10 N Lamar Blvd (Crestview) ‐ Intersection upgrades 10.9 21.3 23.1 10.4 65.7 TBD TBD

MD 7 Guadalupe St (The Drag) ‐ Priority treatments 15.1 18.3 12.8 17.4 63.5 TBD TBD

MD 4 W Riverside Dr ‐ Priority treatments 13.7 17.5 18.2 11.5 61.0 TBD TBD

MD 2 S Congress Ave ‐ Priority treatments 6.0 21.3 11.5 11.9 50.6 TBD TBD

MD 3 Barton Springs Rd ‐ Priority treatments 3.9 20.4 17.1 8.6 49.9 TBD TBD

MD 1 S Lamar Blvd ‐ Priority treatments 3.6 18.1 12.5 9.2 43.4 TBD TBD



Step 2: Tiered ResultsStep 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal) Step 2: Qualitative Analysis ‐ Implementation & Operations


Doc Control #436.06

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Project Connect


Enhancement Projects: MetroRail

ID Project NameCustomer Experience Reliability Sustainability

Land Use and Policy TOTAL 1 2 3

Regional Connectivity

Community Support

Funding Opportunities 1 2 3

ML 1 Rail Station Capacity Projects 25.0 20.0 19.7 22.9 87.6 TBD

ML 6 Proposed Hancock Station 15.8 15.0 19.0 3.8 53.6 TBD

ML 2 Passing Siding 11.7 25.0 11.9 4.1 52.6 TBD

ML 4 Proposed Highland Station 11.0 20.0 10.8 5.3 47.1 TBD

ML 3 Proposed Domain / Broadmoor Station

7.5 20.0 10.1 5.5 43.1 TBD

ML 5 Proposed Braker Station 8.8 20.0 8.3 4.0 41.1 TBD


TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD



Step 2: Qualitative Analysis ‐ Implementation & OperationsStep 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal)


Doc Control #436.06

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Project Connect


Enhancement Projects: MetroExpress

ID Project NameCustomer Experience

Reliability SustainabilityLand Use and

PolicyTOTAL 1 2 3

Regional Connectivity

Community Support


1 2 3

ME 3 35th St, Mopac ‐ Guadalupe 18.6 11.2 20.6 9.3 59.7 TBD

ME 7 US 183 (N) 2.4 15.5 19.1 21.3 58.2 TBD

ME 2W. 5th St, Mopac ‐ Guadalupe

W. Cesar Chavez, Mopac ‐ Guadalupe11.2 18.7 11.4 13.7 55.0 TBD

ME 6 US 290 E 4.6 14.9 22.1 7.6 49.2 TBD

ME 1 MoPac (N) 3.9 14.0 18.0 7.0 42.9 TBD

ME 4 MoPac (S) 2.8 17.0 16.9 5.2 41.8 TBD

ME 5 US 290 W 1.1 15.9 17.2 5.4 39.7 TBD

Tier 1 Projects and Corridors will be defined and prioritized in Project Connect - Phase 2

Tier 2 and Tier 3 Projects and Corridors will be recommended for future study



Step 2: Tiered ResultsStep 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal) Step 2: Qualitative Analysis ‐ Implementation & Operations


TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Doc Control #436.06

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Project Connect


Enhancement Projects: Mobility Hubs

ID Project Name Customer Experience

Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy

TOTAL 1 2 3 Regional Connectivity

Community Support


1 2 3

MH 2 W 4th St (Republic Square) 24.5 25.0 15.1 10.5 75.1 TBD

MH 3 W 4th Street 12.8 25.0 11.1 8.8 57.7 TBD

MH 9 North Lamar T.C. 14.4 21.0 19.5 2.2 57.0 TBD

MH 6 Tech Ride P&R 9.8 21.0 15.3 5.7 51.9 TBD

MH 1 W 4th St (DT MR Station) 6.1 25.0 10.5 10.1 51.7 TBD

MH 21 Rundberg 4.1 16.0 25.0 5.7 50.8 TBD

MH 11 Leander Station 12.8 21.0 13.1 2.9 49.7 TBD

MH 10 Westgate T.C. 6.8 21.0 16.8 3.9 48.5 TBD

MH 4 Crestview 6.4 20.0 17.4 4.2 48.0 TBD

MH 17 South Lamar 14.4 11.0 15.9 4.1 45.4 TBD

MH 12 South Congress T.C. 6.4 21.0 15.0 1.9 44.3 TBD

MH 18 Elgin P&R 7.4 21.0 14.3 1.2 43.9 TBD

MH 13 Highland 5.3 21.0 13.8 3.7 43.7 TBD

MH 7 Lakeline Station 8.1 21.0 12.1 2.4 43.7 TBD

MH 8 Howard P&R 6.8 21.0 13.8 1.9 43.4 TBD

MH 14 UT Austin 9.8 11.0 16.0 6.3 43.1 TBD

MH 15 Southpark Meadows 8.1 11.0 16.1 7.8 43.0 TBD

MH 16 Kramer 6.8 16.0 13.7 5.3 41.9 TBD

MH 20 Pavilion P&R 2.4 21.0 13.3 2.4 39.0 TBD

MH 22 Anderson 2.9 16.0 16.5 3.2 38.5 TBD

MH 23 The Domain 4.9 16.0 11.6 3.6 36.0 TBD

MH 5 Domain 5.3 11.0 12.7 4.5 33.5 TBD

MH 19 Manor Walmart 4.3 16.0 10.9 0.7 31.8 TBD

Tier 1 Projects and Corridors will be defined and prioritized in Project Connect - Phase 2

Tier 2 and Tier 3 Projects and Corridors will be recommended for future study



Step 2: Tiered ResultsStep 2: Qualitative Analysis ‐ Implementation & Operations


Step 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal)

Doc Control #436.06

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD


Appendix C: Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluation Detail Results

Regional Connectivity, Funding Opportunities, Special Considerations

Doc Control# 437.2

Corridor ID Description Rating Notes

1 E 12th St Medium

Corridor does connect to the downtown core but does not

significantly connect to regional or emerging activity centers

2 S 1st St Medium Corridor provides service to the downtown core from Ben White

3 7th / Lake Austin Medium Corridor only serves downtown Austin

4 15th Medium Corridor only serves downtown Austin

5 35th / 38th Low Corridor does not connect to activity centers

6 51st Low

Corridor does not connect to the downtown core but intersects

multiple activity centers

7 Airport Blvd Medium

Corridor connects to many activity centers but does not connect to

the downtown core

8 Bergstrom Spur Low Corridor does not connect to the downtown core

9 Cesar Chavez Medium Corridor only serves downtown Austin

10 Congress High

Corridor supports regional connectivity to the Central core. MD 801

provides high capacity transit along this route.

11 S Lamar High



12 N Lamar / Guadalupe High



13 MLK Jr. Medium

Corridor connects to the downtown core and many activity centers

(potentially emerging centers) but is not served by high frequency

transit

14 Oltorf Low

Corridor does not connect to the downtown core and does not

impact activity centers

15 Pleasant Valley Medium

Corridor does not connect to the downtown core but provides high

frequency transit (300 and 320) on the city's eastern side.

16 Highland / Red River / Trinity High

Corridor supports regional connectivity to the Central core. It also

connects to multiple activity centers and the downtown core

17 Manor / Dean Keeton Medium

Corridor supports regional connectivity to the Central core. It also

connects to multiple activity centers and the downtown core

however there is not high frequency transit along this route

18 Riverside High

Corridor connects links the downtown core area to TX 71 and

connects to activity centers, potentially emerging regional areas

19 45th / Burnet Medium Corridor serves regional activity center (North Burnet Gateway)

20 Downtown Circulator Medium Corridor only serves downtown Austin

21 S Congress Circulator Medium Corridor only serves downtown Austin

22 Red River Medium Corridor only serves downtown Austin

23 Airport Line High

Corridor serves downtown Austin and provides unique access to the

Bergstrom Intl Airport. The airport serves as a unique regional

center.

24 MoKan Line High

Corridor serves downtown Austin and provides conections to

multiple activity centers and emerging regional centers

25 IH 35 High



26 Green Line High


multiple activity centers and emerging regional centers, specifically

Elgin

27 UPRR High

Corridors serves downtown Austin and provides conections to

multiple activity centers and emerging regional centers, specifically

Taylor, Round Rock, and San Marcos

28 Red Line (double track) High

Corridors serves downtown Austin and provides conections to


29 Domain Circulator Medium Corridor serves the regional activity center of the Domain

REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY - INVESTMENT

Doc Control# 437.2

CID NameIndependent

Utility?

Natural/Physical

Barriers?ROW Ownership

Recent Transit-Supportive

Development?Total Overall SC Score Notes

1 E 12th St 1 -1 0 0 0 Medium

Barriers: IH35, Red Line (Freight RR)

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

2 S 1st St 1 -1 0 0 0 Medium

Barriers: Lady Bird Lake

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

3 7th / Lake Austin 1 0 0 1 2 High

Barriers: Mopac, IH35

Referenda: N/A

Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC

4 15th -1 0 0 -1 -2 Low

Barriers: IH35

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

5 35th / 38th -1 1 0 -1 -1 Low

Barriers: None

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

6 51st -1 0 0 -1 -2 Low

Barriers: IH35

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

7 Airport Blvd -1 0 0 0 -1 Low

Barriers: IH35

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

8 Bergstrom Spur -1 0 -1 -1 -3 Low

Barriers: IH35, US 183

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

9 Cesar Chavez 1 0 0 -1 0 Medium

Barriers: IH35

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

10 Congress 1 -1 0 1 1 Medium


Referenda: 2000 LPA LRT Referendum (lost by less than 1%)


11 S Lamar 1 1 0 1 3 High

Barriers: None (UPRR freight RR already grade separated)

Referenda: N/A


12 N Lamar / Guadalupe 1 -1 0 1 1 Medium

Barriers: Red Line (Freight RR)

Referenda: 2000 LPA LRT Referendum (lost by less than 1%)


13 MLK Jr. 1 -1 0 -1 -1 Low

Barriers: IH35, Red Line (Freight RR)

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

14 Oltorf -1 0 0 -1 -2 Low

Barriers: IH35

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

15 Pleasant Valley -1 -1 0 0 -2 Low

Barriers: Lady Bird Lake (Longhorn Dam)

Referenda: N/A


16 Highland / Red River / Trinity 1 -1 0 1 1 Medium

Barriers: Lady Bird Lake (New Crossing); Red Line (Freight RR)

Referenda: Rejected in 2014 Bond Election


17 Manor / Dean Keeton 0 0 0 0 0 Medium

Barriers: IH35

Referenda: N/A


18 Riverside 0 0 0 1 1 Medium

Barriers: IH35

Referenda: Rejected in 2014 Bond Election


19 45th / Burnet 0 1 0 1 2 High

Barriers: None

Referenda: N/A


20 Downtown Circulator 1 1 0 0 2 High

Barriers: None

Referenda: N/A

Development: Downtown Core

21 S Congress Circulator 1 -1 0 0 0 Low


Referenda: N/A

Development: VMU/S Central Waterfront Master Plan

22 Red River 1 1 0 0 2 High

Barriers: None

Referenda: N/A

Development: Dell Medical School, Brackenridge Redevelopment

29 Domain Circulator 1 -1 0 1 1 Medium

Barriers: Mopac, US 183, UPRR Freight Line

Referenda: N/A

Development: Several VMU Complexes recently built or UC

23 Airport Line 1 -1 -1 0 -1 Low

Barriers: Colorado River (New Crossing)

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

24 MoKan Line 1 0 0 -1 0 Medium

Barriers: None

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

25 IH 35 1 -1 0 1 1 High


Referenda: N/A

Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC (Downtown &

adjacent)

26 Green Line 1 1 1 0 3 High

Barriers: None

Referenda: N/A

Development: N/A

27 UPRR 1 -1 -1 1 0 Medium


Referenda: N/A


28 Red Line (double track) 1 -1 1 1 2 High

Barriers: UPRR freight rail

Referenda: N/A

Development: Established TOD regulations/developments

Doc Control# 437.2

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - investments

ID Name Ranking Notes

MD 9

Guadalupe St (SB) /

Lavaca (NB) - Activate

TSP

Medium Provides enhancements in activity center and is on high frequency routes (MD 803 and 801)

MD 5S 1st St - Priority

treatmentsMedium this is technically not located in an activity center but does support inter-local high capacity transit services

MD 6

Guadalupe St (SB) /

Lavaca (NB) - Extend

existing TPLs

Medium the segment is in an activity center and has two high frequency routes (MD 801 and MD 803)

MD 8

W. MLK Jr Blvd

(Guadalupe / Lavaca) -

Intersection upgrades

Medium Provides enhancements in activity center and is on high frequency routes (MD 803 and 801)

MD 10N Lamar Blvd (Crestview)

- Intersection upgradesMedium

this site supports regional high capacity transit services in an emerging regional center (Crestview Station activity center) and is on the MetroRail line that

connects to Central Austin

MD 7Guadalupe St (The Drag) -

Priority treatmentsMedium Provides enhancements in activity center and is on high frequency routes (MD 803 and 801)

MD 4W Riverside Dr - Priority

treatmentsMedium only serves Austin but will improve high frequency travel into downtown

MD 2S Congress Ave - Priority

treatmentsMedium Provides enhancements in activity centers and is on a high frequency route (MD 801)

MD 3Barton Springs Rd -

Priority treatmentsMedium Only serves Austin core but provides high frequency transit, which could improve connections from hinterlands to the core

MD 1S Lamar Blvd - Priority

treatmentsMedium this segment provides high frequency transit service (MD 801 ). It is an important route between southern areas in the region to the downtown core

ME 335th St, Mopac -

GuadalupeLow only serves Austin

ME 7 US 183 (N) High Provides regional connectivity and connects to activity centers

ME 2

W. 5th St & W. Cesar

Chavez, Mopac -

Guadalupe

Medium Provides enhancements along MoPAC, a major thoroughfare in the region

ME 6 US 290 E High Increases regional connectivity along TX 290, connecting Austin to the eastern areas of the region

ME 1 MoPac (N) High is in center of many activity centers, the downtown core, and connects to MoPAC. While it is not regional, per se, it provides a vital link to the region as a whole

ME 4 MoPac (S) High Enhancements support regional connectivity from the downtown core to southern areas

ME 5 US 290 W High this provides support to regional centers and leads toward Central Austin but it does not provide high frequency services

ML 1Rail Station Capacity

ProjectsHigh site is in downtown core and activity centers. Would provide connections to MetroRail and overall regional connectivity

ML 6Proposed Hancock

StationMedium this site supports regional high capacity transit services on the MetroRail line that connects Central Austin to regional areas

ML 2 Passing Siding High These enhancements will affect regional connectivity along the MetroRail line

ML 4Proposed Highland

StationHigh connects to MetroRail line and is in activity center. Enhancements will be part of overall regional connectivity

ML 3Proposed Domain /

Broadmoor StationMedium

this site supports regional high capacity transit services in an emerging regional center (Highland activity center) and is on the MetroRail line that connects to

Central Austin

ML 5 Proposed Braker Station Medium Enhancements support activity centers and would connect to MetroRail, improving regional connectivity

MH 2W 4th St (Republic

Square)Medium this site supports inter-local high capacity transit services in Central Austin

MH 3 W 4th Street Low this site supports inter-local high capacity transit services in Central Austin

MH 9 North Lamar T.C. Low site is not in activity center

MH 6 Tech Ride P&R Medium this enhancement will support overall regional connectivity by improving commuting

MH 1 W 4th St (DT MR Station) High site is in downtown core and activity centers. Would provide connections to MetroRail and overall regional connectivity

MH 21 Rundberg Low not on a rail line and only serves Austin

MH 11 Leander Station High Provides enhancements to an existing MetroRail station

MH 10 Westgate T.C. Medium hub is on TX 71, a major roadway in the region and improvements would provide increased regional connectivity

MH 4 Crestview High enhancements support activity centers and would connect to MetroRail, improving regional connectivity

MH 17 South Lamar Medium Provides enhancements in activity center and is on a high frequency route (MD 803)

MH 12 South Congress T.C. Medium hub is on TX 71, a major roadway in the region and improvements would provide increased regional connectivity

MH 18 Elgin P&R Medium Hub is located in Elgin activity center, an emerging center and the terminus of Green Line improvement

MH 13 Highland Medium station enhancements will support overall regional connectivity

MH 7 Lakeline Station High Enhancements support activity centers and would connect to MetroRail, improving regional connectivity

MH 8 Howard P&R High provides parking improvements along MetroRail and can support overall regional connectivity by providing parking for commuters

MH 14 UT Austin Medium this segment provides high frequency transit services (MD 801 and MD 803)

MH 15 Southpark Meadows Medium Provides enhancements in activity center and is on a high frequency route (MD 801)

MH 16 Kramer Medium station enhancements will support overall regional connectivity

MH 20 Pavilion P&R Medium Enhancements provide parking facilities to support regional connectivity

MH 22 Anderson Medium Provides enhancements in activity center and is on a high frequency route (MD 803)

MH 23 The Domain Low While the site is in an activity center is in not connect to high frequency transit routes

MH 5 Domain Medium Provides enhancements in an activity center and along a MetroRail line, supporting regional connectivity

MH 19 Manor Walmart Low Does not connect to rail or major transit routes

Mobility Hub Enhancements

Metro Rapid Enhancements

Metro Express Enhancements

Metro Rail Enhancements

REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY- INVESTMENTS

Doc Control# 437.2

Project Connect

Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluations

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

ID Name DescriptionA-C-R

Impacts

Natural &

Physical BarriersROW Ownership


DevelopmentTotal Rating NOTES

MD 1 S Lamar Blvd - Priority treatmentsAdd'l Stations + UpgradesTransit Priority Lanes

0 1 0 1 2

Medium

A-C-R: Connect, RideBarriers: N/AReferenda: Supported by 2016 Mobility Bond ProgramDevelopment: several mixed use developments (several hundred units) at Bluebonnet, BrokenSpoke, Gibson, etc..

MD 2S Congress Ave - Priority

treatments

Add'l Stations + UpgradesTransit Priority Lanes

0 1 0 1 2

Medium

A-C-R: Connect, RideBarriers: N/AReferenda: supported by 2000 LRT plan LPADevelopment: S. Congress redevelopment between Riverside Dr & Annie St.

MD 3Barton Springs Rd - Priority

treatments

Station UpgradesTransit Priority Lanes

0 1 0 -1 0

Medium

A-C-R: Connect, RideBarriers: N/AReferenda: Supported by All Systems Go (2004)Development: N/A

MD 4W Riverside Dr - Priority

treatments

Intersection UpgradesTransit Priority Lanes

0 1 0 1 2

Medium

A-C-R: Connect, RideBarriers: N/AReferenda: Supported by All Systems Go (2004), 2016 Mobility Bond ProgramDevelopment: South River Development (TxDOT property)

MD 5 S 1st St - Priority treatments

Intersection UpgradesTransit Priority LanesTraffic Signal Upgrades

0 0 0 -1 -1

Medium

A-C-R: Connect, RideBarriers: Colorado River (1st St bridge)Referenda: Supported by All Systems Go (2004)Development: N/A

MD 6Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) -

Extend existing TPLsTransit Priority Lanes -1 1 0 -1 -1

Medium

A-C-R: RideBarriers: Existing 1-way traffic operationsReferenda: Supported by LRT Plan LPA (2000)Development: N/A

MD 7Guadalupe St (The Drag) - Priority

treatments

Station UpgradesTransit Priority Lanes

0 1 0 -1 0

Medium

A-C-R: Connect, RideBarriers: N/AReferenda: Supported by 2016 Mobility Bond ProgramDevelopment: N/A

MD 8W. MLK Jr Blvd (Guadalupe /

Lavaca) - Intersection upgradesIntersection Upgrades -1 0 0 -1 -2

Low

A-C-R: RideBarriers: UT campus constructon adjacent to intersectionReferenda: Supported by Supported by LRT Plan LPA (2000), All Systems Go (2004), 2016 Mobility Bond ProgramDevelopment: N/A

MD 9Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) -

Activate TSPTraffic Signal Priority -1 1 0 -1 -1

Medium

A-C-R: RideBarriers: Existing 1-way traffic operationsReferenda: Supported by LRT Plan LPA (2000), Supported by All Systems Go (2004), 2016 Mobility Bond ProgramDevelopment: N/A

MD 10N Lamar Blvd (Crestview) -

Intersection upgrades

Intersection UpgradesPedestrian Safety

0 1 0 1 2

Medium

A-C-R: Connect, RideBarriers: at-grade RR crossing with MetroRail Red LineReferenda: Supported by LRT Plan LPA (2000), Supported by All Systems Go (2004), 2016 Mobility Bond ProgramDevelopment: Recent multifamily unit construction

ME 1 MoPac (N) Managed Lane Operations -1 0 0 -1 -2

Low

A-C-R: RideBarriers: Limited access points (Parmer, FM 2222, Cesar Chavez / 5th St)Referenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

ME 2

W. 5th St, Mopac - Guadalupe

W. Cesar Chavez, Mopac -

Guadalupe

Transit Priority Lanes -1 0 0 -1 -2

Low

A-C-R: RideBarriers: Existing 1-way traffic operations; Direct access/egress connections to MoPacReferenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

ME 3 35th St, Mopac - Guadalupe Transit Priority Lanes -1 0 0 -1 -2

Low

A-C-R: RideBarriers: Direct access/egress connections to MoPacReferenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

ME 4 MoPac (S) Managed Lane Operations -1 0 0 -1 -2

Low

A-C-R: RideBarriers: Managed Lanes not in operationReferenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

ME 5 US 290 W Managed Lane Operations -1 0 0 -1 -2

Low


ME 6 US 290 E Managed Lane Operations -1 0 0 -1 -2

Low

A-C-R: RideBarriers: Limited Access Points (Manor Park & Ride, DT Austin)Referenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

ME 7 US 183 (N) Managed Lane Operations -1 0 0 -1 -2

Low


Doc Control # 437.2

Project Connect

Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluations

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

ID Name DescriptionA-C-R

Impacts

Natural &

Physical BarriersROW Ownership


DevelopmentTotal Rating NOTES

ML 1 Rail Station Capacity Projects Station Capacity Upgrades -1 1 1 1 2

Medium

A-C-R: ConnectBarriers: N/AReferenda: Supported by 2004 All Systems Go Development: N/A

ML 2 Passing Siding Rail Passing Tracks (Sidings) -1 1 0 -1 -1

Medium

A-C-R: RideBarriers: limited areas w/ROW for constructionReferenda: Supported by 2004 All Systems Go Development: N/A

ML 3Proposed Domain / Broadmoor

StationStation Relocation 0 1 1 1 3

High

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: N/AReferenda: existing Kramer station supported by 2004 All Systems GoDevelopment: Potential private interest to relocate station

ML 4 Proposed Highland Station Station Relocation 0 1 1 1 3

High

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: N/AReferenda: N/ADevelopment: ACC Highland redevelopment plan

ML 5 Proposed Braker Station Add'l Station 0 1 1 1 3

High

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: N/AReferenda: N/ADevelopment: More accessible to new development at The Domain

ML 6 Proposed Hancock Station Add'l Station 0 1 1 1 3

High

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: Site is adjacent to I-35 (potential accessibility issues)Referenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

MH 1 W 4th St (DT MR Station) Sabine St 0 1 0 1 2

Medium

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: N/AReferenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

MH 2 W 4th St (Republic Square) San Antonio St 0 1 0 1 2

Medium


MH 3 W 4th Street San Antonio St -1 1 0 -1 -1

Medium

A-C-R: RideBarriers: N/AReferenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

MH 4 Crestview Airport Blvd 0 -1 0 1 0

Medium

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: N/AReferenda: N/ADevelopment: Recent multifamily unit construction

MH 5 Domain -1 1 -1 1 0

Medium

A-C-R: ConnectBarriers: N/AReferenda: N/ADevelopment: Recent mixed use and multifamily unit construction

MH 6 Tech Ride P&R 0 1 1 -1 1

Medium


MH 7 Lakeline Station 0 1 1 0 2

Medium

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: N/AReferenda: N/ADevelopment: Recent multifamily unit construction

MH 8 Howard P&R 0 1 1 -1 1

Medium


MH 9 North Lamar T.C. 0 0 1 -1 0

Medium

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: Site is land locked adjacent to US 183 (limited accessibility)Referenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

MH 10 Westgate T.C. 0 0 0 -1 -1

Medium


MH 11 Leander Station 0 1 1 1 3

High

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: N/AReferenda: N/ADevelopment: Recent multifamiliy unit construction

MH 12 South Congress T.C. 0 0 0 -1 -1

Medium


MH 13 Highland 0 1 -1 1 1

Medium

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: N/AReferenda: N/ADevelopment: ACC Highland redevelopment plan

MH 14 UT Austin 0 1 0 -1 0

Medium


MH 15 Southpark Meadows 0 0 0 -1 -1

Medium


MH 16 Kramer 0 1 -1 1 1

Medium


MH 17 South Lamar 0 1 0 1 2

Medium


MH 18 Elgin P&R 0 0 -1 -1 -2

Low

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: Site adjacent to US 290 (potential accessibility issues)Referenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

MH 19 Manor Walmart 0 0 -1 -1 -2

Low


MH 20 Pavilion P&R 0 0 0 -1 -1

Medium


MH 21 Rundberg 0 1 0 -1 0

Medium


MH 22 Anderson 0 1 0 -1 0

Medium


MH 23 The Domain 0 0 -1 1 0

Medium

A-C-R: Access, ConnectBarriers: Site adjacent to MoPac (potential accessibilty issues)Referenda: N/ADevelopment: N/A

Doc Control # 437.2


C-2 Doc Control# 437.2


To address this broad perspective, the evaluation process considers the project’s type (including all possible modes under consideration for Investment Corridors), the project’s scope and length, and the mix of land uses in the corridor in which the project is located. Based on these factors, the project is then evaluated based on its programmatic eligibility for different funding and financing programs, and then its competitiveness for these programs based on the project’s level of service impacts. This two-phase analysis is conducted for four categories of project funding:

Local State

Federal Private

Each Project and Corridor was assessed (Low, Medium, or High) for potential eligibility for local or CMTA general revenue funding and competitiveness/ eligibility for local, private, state, or Federal funding. The following section details programs and mechanisms evaluated under each funding and financing categories.

Local Funding The Local Funding analysis identifies the presence of various local funding programs within the corridors in which the projects are located. These programs include the following:

Program Structure Eligible Projects

Tax Increment Financing District

A program that defines a geographic boundary in which all growth in property tax revenues above a baseline are dedicated to a specific purpose or program

Infrastructure projects located within geographic boundaries

Parking Benefit District A program that expands metered on-street parking within a set geographic area

Transportation and streetscape assets located within geographic boundaries

Corridor Improvement Program

A modernization program that assesses transportation needs within a corridor and identifies projects to modernize the corridor for all users

Transportation assets located within corridor

Downtown Public Improvement District

A program that establishes a geographic boundary in which properties are assessed an additional $0.10 per $100 in assessed value

Public services and land use improvements located within geographic boundaries

Eligibility and Competitiveness

Local

Private

State

Federal



The Local Funding analysis also identifies areas of overlap between the Project Connect portfolio and long-range transportation plans and community planning efforts established by other regional entities. By aligning the Project Connect portfolio with these plans, CMTA will have greater ability to establish funding partnerships with local and regional partners that build on the partners’ strategic mobility decisions. The selected plans include:

City of Austin 2016 Mobility Bond Program and Project portfolio Connections 2025

City of Austin Capital Improvement Program CAMPO 2040 Plan

City of Austin Strategic Mobility Plan TxDOT I-35 Mobility Program

Additionally, the Local Funding analysis identifies the presence of land use types that represent strategic value for the project at the local level. These land use types are grouped into three categories:

Land Use Type Example Project Benefit

Anchor Institution Convention Center University

Long-range generator of activity and “sense of place” for a neighborhood / region

Institutional partner Property manager for multi-family housing development

Funding/operational partner with vested interest in strong transportation service

Trip generator Shopping center Reliable source of moderate-to-high transit ridership

Value capture mechanisms are further considered through the analysis of the mix of land uses that exist within the corridor. The analysis accounts for an approximation of the number and size of parcels within the corridor according to three broad land use categories:

Commercial,

Residential, and

Government

It is assumed that higher counts of commercial parcels within a corridor increase the probability that a value capture program can provide significant financial contributions to a project.

Based on the presence of these various funding programs, anchor institutions, and land use mixes within the corridor, the evaluation determines the ability of the project to generate funding at the local level.

Private Funding The Private Funding analysis evaluates each project on its potential to be planned, implemented, and/or managed as a Public Private Partnership (P3). This analysis determines if the project is able to be transferred to private control (ownership, operation, and/or management) to reduce risk and cost for the public partner and if the project is able to create value for the private partner. Risk analysis considers the balance of returns as compared to losses, which may result from underperformance of the asset or increases in project costs, and determines if the project can be structured to reasonably control for these risks. Based on the assessment of risk management and value creation, the Private Funding analysis determines the project’s ability to attract private capital:



State Funding The State Funding analysis has determined that the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has limited resources available to transit agencies for public transportation projects. While TxDOT acts as a delegating agency for the distribution of certain federal formula grants to local municipalities and transit agencies, TxDOT adheres to the regulations for distribution set by federal standards and operates as a pass-through agency. TxDOT does maintain two competitive sources of transportation funding and financing: the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) and the Texas Mobility Fund. The SIB distributes low-interest loans to finance transportation projects, while the Texas Mobility Fund issues bonds for the funding of transportation projects. Both programs have established eligibility criteria that require projects to be located on the State Highway System.

Consequently, state-level funding opportunities for projects are limited, as the geographic location of the project determines if the project is eligible. The State Funding analysis determines if the project is located on the State Highway System and then assesses the competitiveness for funding under the two programs, as based on the criteria that TxDOT utilizes to evaluate submitted projects.

Federal Funding The Federal Funding analysis compares each project to the eligibility criteria defined by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula and competitive grants. The application of each CMTA project to the eligibility criteria of each program determines if the project can be considered for federal funding under the program.

Several FTA program grants consider the overall financial capacity of the sponsoring transit agency. This consideration evaluates the transit agency on its capital and operating conditions to assess the agency’s ability to absorb the additional capital and operating costs associated with the new project. This analysis includes the following criteria:

Average bus fleet age Presence of positive cash flow

Ratio of assets to liabilities Presence of service cutbacks

Bond ratings for bonds lessthan (2) years old

Sources of available non-committedfunds or financial capacity (debtcapacity, cash reserves, etc.)

While different projects will have different capital and operational costs that influence CMTA’s overall financial capacity, the evaluation interprets CMTA’s current performance as a “baseline” indicator that influences the competitiveness of the Authority relative to other applicants. Due to the overall high performance of CMTA on these various metrics, it is assumed that the Authority’s financial capacity enhances the competitiveness of all projects under evaluation, as demonstrated by the following table:

P3 Opportunity

Create revenue for

private partner

Reduce cost for public partner

Reduce risk for project

lifecycle



Assessed Capital and Operating Conditions CMTA Performance

Performance Rating (FTA CIG Guidance)

Average Bus Fleet Age 8.37 Years Medium-Low

Bond ratings less than 2 years old TBD Bond ratings less than 2 years old

Positive cash flow ($48.95 million) Low

Total Annual Operating Expenses $253.68 million --

Total Annual Operating Revenues $283.08 million --

Net Annual Operating Revenue $29.4 million --

Asset :: Liability Ratio 3.84::1 ($563.2::$146.3) High

Existence of Service Cutbacks None High

Debt capacity Coverage ratio of 13.77 High

Cash reserves $204.6 million High

This analysis assesses the viability of each corridor and enhancement project to receive funding or financing from FTA formula grants and competitive grant programs or financing from the TIFIA program. Although the analysis evaluates each federal funding program individually, the high/medium/low grade considers the funding programs as integrated into an overall package. The analysis weighs a number of factors while assessing each project’s feasibility for federal funds based on the project’s ability to meet FTA eligibility criteria, which include (but are not limited to):

Congestion relief Economic relief

Economic development Land use

Mobility Cost effectiveness

In addition, the analysis attempts to estimate whether a project’s capital cost would exceed the minimum threshold and fit below the maximum threshold of any federal grant guidelines (although not all federal grants have such threshold values). For example, New Starts-eligible projects must have a minimum project capital cost of $300 million, while Small Starts-eligible projects must have a maximum project capital cost of $300 million. The TIFIA program establishes a minimum project cost of $50 million for eligible projects, with the exception of $10 million for Transit-Oriented Development projects and $15 million for Intelligent Transportation Systems projects.

This estimation is based on an approximate estimation of per-mile costs for various transit modes multiplied by the length of the corridor for each modal type under consideration. Rather than assess the competitiveness of the project’s capital costs, this analysis tests eligibility to ensure that the project represents a high probability of maintaining compliance with the federal grant guidelines.

Score Assignments The following table summarizes the county and intensity of criteria associated with each score that a project could receive:

Scoring Assignment Project Criteria

High

Project is included on several long range transportation plans and/or communityplanning efforts

Located near multiple potential anchor institutions/institutional partners/trip generators

Represents a strong opportunity for risk and revenue sharing with a private partner

Project is entirely or partially located within a geographically-determined local and/orstate funding mechanism

Facilitates efficiency with significant connections with other transit routes/services

Meets significant proportion of FTA eligibility criteria and will likely perform well on thecriteria



Scoring Assignment Project Criteria

Medium

Project is included on a small number of long range transportation plans and/orcommunity planning efforts

Located near one potential anchor institution/institutional partner/trip generator

Represents a moderate opportunity for risk and revenue sharing with a private partner

Project intersects with or is partially located within a geographically-determined localand/or state funding mechanism

Facilitates some efficiency with connections with other transit routes/services

Meets some FTA eligibility criteria but not others

Low

Project is included on two or fewer long range transportation plans and/or communityplanning efforts

Located far from potential anchor institutions/institutional partners/trip generators

Represents a low opportunity for risk and revenue sharing with a private partner

Project is not located within a geographically-determined local and/or state fundingmechanism

Facilitated connections with fewer than two other transit routes/services

Meets fewer than three federal criteria

Data Sources The Funding Opportunity criterion evaluation utilized regulatory guidelines, program policy guidance, and financial information from the following sources:

Austin Economic Development Department. “Downtown Public Improvement Districts.”

<https://austintexas.gov/department/downtown-public-improvement-districts>

Austin Financial Services Department. “Tax Increment Financing (TIFs).” Presentation to Austin City Council Work

Session. June 25, 2013. <http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=191785>

Austin Transportation Department. “Corridor Improvement Program.”

<http://www.austintexas.gov/department/corridor-improvement-programs>

Austin Transportation Department. “Parking Benefit Districts.” <http://www.austintexas.gov/department/parking-

benefit-district>

Austin Transportation Department. “2016 Bond Programs and Projects.” <http://www.campotexas.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/10/CAMPO_2035_Plan_Adopted_May_242010wMods.pdf>

Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. “CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan.”

<http://www.campotexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CAMPO2040PlanFinal.pdf>

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Year Ended

September 30, 2015.”

<http://www.CMTA.org/uploadedFiles/CMTAorg/About_Us/Finance_and_Audit/CMTA%20CAFR%202015%20FINAL.

pdf>

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. “Connections 2025 Draft Plan.” <http://connections2025.org/draft-

plan/>

City of Austin. “Mueller Redevelopment Project Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone No. 16. Final Project

Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan.” August 2009.

<http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=129502>

City of Austin. “Seaholm Redevelopment Project Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone No. 18. Final Project

Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan.” March 2009.

<http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=127245>

City of Austin. “Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone No. 17 (Waller Creek Tunnel Project). Final Project Plan

and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan. March 2008. <http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=148519>

City of Austin. “Civic Capital Improvements.” <https://austintexas.gov/department/civic-projects>



Federal Transit Administration. “Grant Programs.” <https://www.transit.dot.gov/grants>

Florida Transit Information System. Urban Integrated National Transit Database.

<http://www.ftis.org/urban_iNTD.aspx>

Reconnecting America. “Transit Technologies Worksheet.”

<http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice175.pdf>

Texas Department of Transportation. “State Infrastructure Bank.”

<https://www.txdot.gov/government/programs/sib.html>

Texas Department of Transportation. “Texas Mobility Fund.” <http://www.txdot.gov/government/funding/mobility-

fund.html>

Washington State Joint Transportation Committee. “Evaluation of Public Private Partnerships.” January 2012.

http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/P3FinalReport_Jan2012Web.pdf


Appendix D: Online Engagement Tool – Enhancement Project Public Comment Analysis


Enhancement Project Methodology The process for assigning community support scores for the Enhancement Projects differed slightly from the Investment Corridors due to the unique, site-specific or mode-specific nature of the Projects. These Projects also represent various infrastructure, technology and operational components to support existing MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress and Mobility Hub services that do not lend themselves to easy consideration by members of the public. Consequently, the potential benefits of preliminary Enhancement Projects were catalogued into three distinct categories (Access, Connect, Ride), which correlate with the three phases of a user’s transit trip -- in which a rider interacts with the transit system (see figure below).

Access, Connect, Ride (A-C-R) Objectives

Projects that improves how riders get to Cap Metro bus stops and rail stations – whether by foot, bike, or car

Projects that improve how riders get onto Cap Metro buses and trains – – including station, fare payment, and vehicle connection improvements.

Projects that improve the transit ride itself – by reducing delays, increasing transit speed, and making transit service more reliable

Public feedback on these three categories of Projects was solicited at in-person workshops and later assigned to a particular Project based on the location and type of Enhancement identified in the feedback. Online survey responses were more directly tied to specific Enhancement Projects. The comments presented in this report were collected as of March 29, 2017. In general, the community support criterion relied on the following sources of data:

Comment Cards from March 4th workshop Georeferenced stickers from March 4th Workshop Online Survey

Project staff analyzed all comments that came from a hard copy source (Traffic Jam workshop) or from an online (electronic) source. If the comments were directly related to a project or corridor, they were funneled into the Phase 1 Qualitative Analysis. If the comments were broad in nature they were entered into the Comment Management Database and will be used for Phase 2 Gap Analysis and Refinement (see figure next page). Many of these comments will require additional post-processing of responses in order to understand precisely where the potential needs are, as well as the appropriate Enhancement Project components to address them.

D-0 Doc Control# 436.07


Comment Cards from March 4th workshop Comments were collected from participants at the March 4th Traffic Jam workshop. The 57 completed comment cards included 104 comments. Participants were questioned where they would like to see an access, connect, or ride enhancement/improvement and the reasoning for their choice. The comments were broken out by category (Access, Connect, or Ride) and entered into the main Access/Connect/Ride feedback database (see table next page ‘Example of Comment Documentation in Excel’).

If a comment was more general in nature, it was entered into the comment database column and then entered into the comment database. After it was entered, it was marked in the ‘Recorded in Comment Management Database (CMD) column. If a location was specified, it was entered in the location column. Each individual comment was given an ID, since some sheets had multiple comments. Finally, the comments were matched to a sticker-ID based on the description/location of the comment.

Georeferenced Stickers from March 4th Traffic Jam Workshop Maps

Two maps were presented at the March 4th workshop — one for the Study Area and one for the Focus Area. Comments from the worksheets were coupled with the stickers based on the comment location, Enhancement service type and comment ID number. Dots that were not matched with worksheet

Community Support Process



comments were folded in the main comment Excel file as either an Access, Connect, Ride comment per unique zone. In total, there were 118 unique sticker comments collected at the workshop. In total, there were 118 unique sticker comments collected at the workshop:

47 “Access” sticky dots 37 “Connect” sticky dots 24 “Ride” sticky dots

The table, below, provides an example of a ‘Connect’ comment from a workshop participant. The comment was paired with DOT 67 from the sticky dot map exercise (discussed in next section).

Example of Comment Documentation in Excel

A-C-R Location Zone

Description of

Comment Comment Database Recorded

in CMD DOT ID

Connect MetroRapid

stop at Lamar/Justin

North East

needs safer crossover

lights/timing coordinating

with ATD

combine local and rapid stops everywhere -- no more separate stops;

shade structures at every stop

X 67



Sample Traffic Jam ACR Survey Form



Sample Traffic Jam ACS “Sticky Dot” Map



Online Engagement Tool Survey The Enhancement Project survey conducted via the Project Connect online engagement tool allows participants to identify Enhancement service types (MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, Mobility Hub) or specific station locations they believe need improvements. Participants are asked to identify whether the need is related to the transit user’s Access, Connect, or Ride characteristic and provide a text comment, if desired, to describe the issue.

As of April 10, the online survey has garnered 222 unique comments from approximately 56 participants. These comments were entered into the main Enhancement Project community support database. User and Project ID numbers were included to distinguish these online comments from the comment worksheet and map-based feedback results. Comments that did not have a defined location, Enhancement service type or were miscellaneous in nature were entered into the comment database. When appropriate, the participant’s text comments were also used to help assign locations and Enhancement service types to database entries, if a location was not given.

Survey Data Processing The final documentation of Enhancement Project comments was compiled in a master Excel database. The compiled data set allowed the project team to directly relate comments either to specific Phase 1 Enhancement Projects, or to further categorize the information within the comment record to identify additional locations or overarching themes about where improvements are needed.

When applicable, comments that were not related to specific online engagement tool locations were assigned to Enhancement Projects based on their Access/Connect/Ride type, zone assignment, and/or comment text. Comments were catalogued such that feedback can be filtered and displayed in reference to any of the following measures:

The twelve geographic zones within the Focus Area The five county zones making up the Study Area The number of Access, Connect, and Ride comments received The Enhancement service type identified (MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, Mobility

Hub) Online Engagement Map Location (existing station or Mobility Hub)

Below is an example of the final merged comments excel (via workshop comments and online comments).

A-C-R Service Type

Location of Service

Type Zone Comment Misc

Comment User ID

Dot ID Source

Ride MetroRail No location defined

Travis Increase train

frequency. Add service on Sunday.

99 Workshop

As the primary goal of the online engagement tool is to assess the community support for the list of Projects defined in Phase 1, the processing of public feedback prioritized analysis of comments directly related to Enhancement Projects for this qualitative evaluation.

The total count of comments supportive of specific Enhancement Projects were used to rate Community Support in a similar way that the Investment Corridor scoring was assigned, with separate breakpoints identified for High/Medium/Low scores within each Enhancement Service type (MetroRail, MetroRapid, MetroExpress, Mobility Hub).



Preliminary PH.1 Enhancement Project Community Support Results

Access Connect Ride Project (ID #) # Comments Project (ID #) # Comments Project (ID #) # Comments

MD 1 3 MD 2 4 MD 2 5 MD 2 5 MD 7 1 MD 7 3 MD 7 1 MD 9 1 MH 10 1 MH 10 2 MH 10 3 MH 12 1 MH 12 1 MH 12 2 MH 15 1 MH 15 2 MH 15 3 MH 18 1 MH 18 1 MH 18 1 MH 2 1 MH 2 1 MH 2 2 MH 4 3 MH 4 4 MH 4 2 MH 7 1 MH 7 2 MH 7 2 MH 9 1 MH 8 2 MH 8 3 ML 3 1 MH 9 2 ML 3 2 Other 76 ML 3 6 ML 4 1 ML 4 1 Other 106 Other 117

TOTAL 150 TOTAL 133 TOTAL 95

ENHANCEMENT PROJECT COMMENT TOTAL - 378 *See Project List for more information. MD= MetroRapid; MH = Mobility Hub; ML= MetroRail

While some participant comments were able to be directly correlated to the preliminary Enhancement Project Inventory (see Draft Enhancement Project and Investment Corridor Identification Methodology memorandum – January 2017), public feedback also identified several additional areas of need that were not studied under previous initiatives, and therefore, not contained in the preliminary inventory. The preliminary Phase 1 Enhancement Projects consisted mainly of infrastructure improvements to support the existing services. Comments that were able to be correlated to the Enhancement Projects were generally related to user Access and Connect needs in the Focus Area.

As shown in the table above, there are at least 378 participant comments that identify Access, Connect and Ride needs outside of the preliminary Project inventory (299 of 378). Many of the needs are related to Enhancement Project service types in general and address:

Service operations – hours and days of service and frequency of service On board vehicle technologies and safety Additional parking facility needs Existing high-capacity transit stations outside of the Focus Area or not previously studied. Requests for expansion or extension of existing service types



Appendix E: Online Engagement Tool – Investment Corridor Survey Results

E-1 Doc Control# 436.07


606

259206

482 454

639

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

IH 35 Green Line Mokan LineAirport Line Red Line(DoubleTrack)

UnionPacific RR

Commuter

41 81177

395 405

196

76

221271

94 99

317

662

328

191258 284

197

331

0100200300400500600700

Connector



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

S. CongressCirculator

DowntownCirculator

Red RiverCirculator

DomainCirculator

Circulator
