CENTRAL CORRIDOR HIGH-CAPACITY

TRANSIT STUDY

Capital Metro Board of Directors Briefing

March 24, 2014

2

Agenda

1) Introduction

2) Preliminary Alternatives:

Screening Results

3) Final Alternatives

4) Next Steps

1

3

Phase 1 Central Corridor Priority Area 1

• East Riverside (ERC) and Highland

are consistently in the top two

• Advance both into Phase 2

– Develop best project

• Balanced recommendation

– System Development

– Shaping Characteristics

– Serving Characteristics

• Continue system planning and

project definition for next tier

East Riverside

&

Highland

4

2013 2014

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Task 9 1 1

Task 10 1 1 1

Task 11 1 1 1

Task 12 1 1

Task 13 1 1 1 1

Task 14 1 1 1

*

Evaluate Final Alternatives

Step 4: Identify

Preliminary

Alternatives

Central Corridor High-Capacity Transit Study Work Plan

Ph

ase

2

Se

lect

Dra

ft L

oca

lly P

refe

rre

d

Alt

ern

ati

ve

(L

PA

)

Identify & Screen Preliminary Alternatives -- Service,

Mode & Alignment

Select Draft Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)Step 7: Select LPA

Decision

Process – Methodology & Criteria

Step 6: Evaluate

Alternatives

Step 5: Define Final

AlternativesDefine Final Alternatives -- Mode & Alignment

Project Purpose

Phase 2 Work Plan & Schedule

Decision-Making Process

• Phase 2: Select Locally Preferred Alternative

(LPA)

1

Current

Progress

5

Phase 2 Evaluation Process

Identify Preliminary Alternatives

Screen Preliminary Alternatives

Define Final Alternatives

Evaluate Final Alternatives

Select Draft LPA

1

6

Phase 2 Evaluation Process 1

Service

Alignment

Mode

February March April May June

Qualitative

Meet Purpose?

•Demographics

•Destinations

•Logical Termini

•Technical Feasibility

January

SC

RE

EN

EV

ALU

ATE

Quantitative

Best Meets Purpose?

•Ridership

•Detailed Costs

•Stations

•FTA Criteria

•Maintenance Facility

Quantitative

Competitiveness/

Benefits?

•Economic Impacts

•Prelim FTA Rating

Activities

7

Phase 2 Objectives

• Project Definition

– Service, mode, alignment, stops

• Funding Plan

– Capital and O&M costs, funding sources

– Within overall Project Connect Plan

• Governance Structure

1

Project

Funding Governance

8

Preliminary Alternatives: Screening Results 2

9

Recommended Service Profile 2

Speed

10 mph 60 mph

Mixed Traffic Fully Separated

Guideway

Transit Priority/

Pre-emption

Dedicated

Guideway

Separated

Guideway

Stop Spacing

> 5 miles < ¼ mile

Frequency

60 minutes 5 minutes

Reliability

55 mph maximum (including stops)

½ – 1 mile

Mostly Dedicated

10 – 15

20-30 avg.

Recommended Service Profile

Medium Reliability

Medium-High Frequency

Medium-High Stop Spacing

Medium Speed

10

Mode Screening Process

• Public Input

– Preliminary mode alternatives a function of public input (e.g. gondola)

– General agreement on modes considered

– Added evaluation of Personal Rapid Transit (as part of automated guideway)

• Two Tier Screening Process

1. Service Profile

2. Mode Characteristics

2

11

Mode Characteristics 2

Compatibility (with Existing Urban Setting/Infrastructure)

Less Flexible More Flexible

Local Bus

~200

Heavy Rail

>25,000

Energy

Alternative or Renewable Based Fossil Fuel Based

Technology

Proven

Buy America Compliant

Unproven

Not Buy America Compliant

Peak Hour Demand

1,800 to 2,400

12

Evolution of Urban Rail 2

Technology/Operations Continuum

• Mixed traffic

• Small vehicles

• Close stops

• Slow

• Exclusive guideway

• Large vehicles

• Far stops

• Fast

Urban Rail

Streetcar Light Rail

13

Final Mode Alternatives 2

Urban Rail Bus Rapid Transit

(dedicated)

14

• Corridor

organized into

five areas:

– East Riverside

– Lady Bird Lake

– Downtown

– Campus

– Highland

2 Alignment

Screening

15

Alignment Screening Process

• Public Input

– Preliminary alignment alternatives a function of public input (e.g. Rainey)

– Added evaluation of I-35 between Hancock and Highland

• Three Tier Screening Process

1. Service Characteristics

2. Alignment Criteria

• Mobility and Connectivity

• Compatibility with Plans

• Technical Feasibility

3. Logical Connections

2

16

East Riverside Area 2

• Consistent with East Riverside Corridor Master Plan

• East Riverside Drive scores high in most criteria

17

Lady Bird Lake Area 2

Eliminated:

• Congress, South 1st

and I-35 Frontage

– Reliability and Speed

• Red River

– ROW

• Rainey and East

Avenue

– ROW and Traffic

Passed:

• Trinity

– Ranks highest in

most criteria

– Tunnel and bridge

options to be

considered

18

Downtown Area 2

Eliminated:

• Guadalupe-Lavaca and Congress-San Jacinto – Reliability

– Speed

• Red River – Eliminated in crossing of Lady Bird

Lake area; scores much lower than Trinity-San Jacinto

Passed:

• Trinity-San Jacinto – Ranks highest in most criteria

– Strong in jobs per route mile

Future Consideration:

• Seaholm connection

19

Population Density Maps 2

2010

2030

20

Employment Density Map 2

2010

2030

21

Campus Area 2

• San Jacinto scores

very well in most

criteria

• Consistent with UT

Campus Master

Plan

22

Highland Area 2

Eliminated:

• Airport-Duval and Airport-Red River (West) – Reliability

– Speed

– Neighborhood/ROW impacts

Passed:

• Airport-Red River (East) and I-35-Red River – Ranks highest in most

criteria

Other Considerations:

• Potential Grade Separations – Hancock Center

– Red Line

– I-35

23

Final Alternatives 3

24

Final Alternatives – Elements

• Number and locations of stops

• Vehicle types

• Vehicle maintenance facility options

• Alignment alternatives refinements

– Additional screening

• Operations plan – in progress

3

25

Terminus

options

Stations 3

Proposed station

locations

Additional

locations under

review

Three sections in detail: • East Riverside • Downtown to UT • Hancock to

Highland

26

Riverside Stations 3

27

Stations 3

• Downtown

through UT

28

Stations 3

• Hancock to

Highland

Terminus

options

29

Typical Section

• Considerations – ROW width

– Guideway requirements

– Operations

– At grade, elevated, tunnel

3

– Other modes

– Parking

– Driveways

– Etc.

*Guideway considerations and station platforms are virtually the

same for both modes

30

Lady Bird Lake Crossing Bridge Option

3

• Lower cost than tunnel

• Interface with Waller Creek Lattice, Waller Creek Boathouse, Four Seasons, TxDOT, Statesman, Housing Authority

• Opportunity for signature structure

Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Bridge across Willamette River

31

Lady Bird Lake Crossing Bridge Option

3

• Rough order-of-magnitude cost for Urban Rail $175M (East Riverside to 15th St.) • $75M for signature bridge • $100M for at-grade section (Cesar Chavez to 15th St.)

• BRT ~25% - 30% less

4th

St.

Ce

sar

Ch

ave

z S

t.

15

th S

t.

12

th S

t.

Existing ground profile

Riv

ers

ide

Dr.

32

Lady Bird Lake Crossing Tunnel Option

3

• Costs more than bridge

• Avoids Waller Creek Boathouse

• Construction methods:

– Cast-in-place box

– Bored/mined tunnel

• Portals on South Shore and Trinity

• Tunnel can be extended into downtown to increase service reliability and speed and to eliminate at-grade traffic impacts

33

Lady Bird Lake Crossing Short Tunnel Option

3

• Rough order-of-magnitude cost for Urban Rail $240M (East Riverside to 15th St.) • $175M for tunnel • $65M for at-grade section (4th St. to 15th St.)

• BRT ~15% - 25% less

4th

St.

Ce

sar

Ch

ave

z S

t.

15

th S

t.

12

th S

t.

Existing ground profile Eliminates traffic impact

at Cesar Chavez

Riv

ers

ide

Dr.

34

Lady Bird Lake Crossing Long Tunnel Option

3

• Rough order-of-magnitude cost for Urban Rail $475M (East Riverside to 15th St.) – tunnel and stations

• BRT ~5% - 15% less

Eliminates at-grade impacts to

traffic, pedestrians, utilities, etc.,

from Cesar Chavez to 15th St.

4th

St.

Ce

sar

Ch

ave

z S

t.

15

th S

t.

12

th S

t.

Riv

ers

ide

Dr.

Existing ground profile

35

Ongoing Considerations: System Connectivity

• MetroRail Red Line

– Downtown Station improvements

– Impacts of additional station at Hancock or Airport Blvd.

• E-W through downtown

– 4th St. transit mall

– Seaholm/LSTAR/Amtrak

• Future connections

– Next tier sub-corridors (Lamar, Mueller, East Austin)

– Other sub-corridors

3

36

4 Next Steps

37

Next Steps

• Define Final Alternatives

– Typical Sections (side vs center), Stop

Locations, Grade Separation needs

– Quantities/Cost Estimates

– Operating Plan – peak/off-peak

frequencies, hours/days of operation,

fleet size

– Maintenance Facility Needs

• Develop Evaluation Methodology

• Begin Evaluation of Final Alternatives

4

38

Road to the LPA – Upcoming CCAG Meetings

• CCAG #11, April 11th – Operations plan

– Evaluation approach

– FTA process

– Project development timeline

• CCAG #12, May 2nd – Project team recommendation for LPA (end-to-end)

– System connectivity

– Rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost estimates

– Ridership estimates

– Funding and governance

• CCAG #13, May 16th – Phasing options (the project)

– System connectivity

– Scope and fee for additional system planning and project definition

• CCAG #14, June 13th – Action on recommended LPA and 1st Phase (the project)

4

THANK YOU

More Information:

Project Connect &

Central Corridor HCT Study projectconnect.com