Capital MetroRail Green Line - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Capital MetroRail Green Line PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 24394-NGY0Y



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Capital MetroRail Green Line

Description:

... will be prepared for the Green Line project, per the Decision Tree process ... Proven ability to attract new transit riders. Cost-competitive alternative ' ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:205
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: rla1
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Capital MetroRail Green Line


1
Capital MetroRail Green Line
CAMPO Transit Working Group December 2008
2
Capital MetroRail Green Line Passenger
Rail Statement of Purpose
Develop and operate passenger rail in the East
Austin area to provide transportation choices,
improve mobility, enhance the environment and
move towards the regional vision for growth.
3
Responses to Questions from 12.01.08 TWG Meeting
4
Typical Rail Project Development Process
  • 1. SYSTEMS PLANNING (0 - 2 project detail)
    CAMPOs 2030 / 2035 Plan Capital Metros All
    Systems Go! Plan
  • 2. CORRIDOR PLANNING (2 - 10 project
    detail) Alternatives Analysis Environmental
    Analysis
  • 3. PROJECT DEFINITION (10 - 30 project detail)
    Preliminary Engineering
  • 4. FINAL DESIGN (30 - 100 project detail)
  • Note Cost estimates are refined at each phase.

Level of Detail
5
Sorting the Questions
6
Questions of a local policy nature
7
1. What is the potential for the Austin area
going into air quality non-attainment and what
impact that could have on project selection and
prioritization?
  • MPO best suited to answer this
  • Projects that add pollutants must be balanced by
    projects that reduce pollutants
  • Evolving nature of federal rulemaking always a
    factor (CMAQ, etc.)
  • If designated non-attainment, TCEQ submits
    revised State Implementation Plan (SIP) to EPA.
    The SIP could require certain transportation
    control measures such as
  • Programs to improve public transit
  • Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or
    construction of such roads or lanes for use by,
    passenger buses or high occupancy vehicles
  • Employer-based transportation management plans,
    including incentives
  • Failure to have a plan that shows meeting
    standards can jeopardize construction and funding

8
10. We're told that federal funding is embedded
in the Green Line proposal. Please brief the TWG
on that process so we can understand all that it
entails.
  • Federal funding one of many potential funding
    sources
  • Project development to follow federal process
  • Alternatives Analysis
  • NEPA Process
  • Preliminary Design
  • Final Design
  • Construction
  • Two main reasons
  • Remain eligible for federal funds
  • Solid, if time-consuming, process

9
New Starts Process
10
11. If this proposal moves forward, do we
correctly understand that in coming back with the
actual financing information, you also will
include financing information on the
alternatives? And this will come back to the TWG
before it is presented to CAMPO, right?
  • CAMPO best suited to answer
  • A financing package will be prepared for the
    Green Line project, per the Decision Tree process
  • Process is subject to change by TWG and/or CAMPO
  • As currently understood, funding plan to be
    presented to TWG as Step 2

11
13. Will the Green Line evaluation be revisited
by the TWG after there is reasonable operation
data from the Red Line?
  • To be determined by CAMPO Policy Board

12
Questions typically addressed as part of an
Alternatives Analysis
13
4. What is the potential to modify the alignment
to serve key tracts of land such as Decker Lake?
  • Definite potential
  • Standard conditions apply
  • Funding availability
  • ROW acquisition
  • Environmental
  • Operational impact
  • Opportunity for coordinated land use
    transportation

14
5. What are the comparative costs and tradeoffs
between passenger rail and other high capacity
transit options in the corridor (such as Bus
Rapid Transit)?
  • Question similar to 9, response provided there

15
6. What are the tradeoffs of electrifying the
line instead of using diesel multiple unit
technology?
  • Potential Benefits of Electrification Include
  • Flexibility in sources of energy
  • Some air quality improvement (assuming green
    energy sources)
  • Minimal reduction in trackside noise
  • Possible elimination of remote fueling facilities
  • Potential Added Costs of Electrification
    Include
  • Added cost of 2M to 3M per mile in capital cost
  • Added cost to maintain different rail fleets

16
7. How do the costs (per mile, per passenger
mile, etc.) compare between this proposal and the
290 toll road project?
  • Traffic Congestion
  • Peak Hour
  • Travel Measure
  • Passenger Miles

17
7. How do the costs (per mile, per passenger
mile, etc.) compare between this proposal and the
290 toll road project?
18
7. How do the costs (per mile, per passenger
mile, etc.) compare between this proposal and the
290 toll road project?
19
8. Request clarification of costs and whether
they fully cover the level of service used to
estimate ridership in 2030
  • Cost estimates cover base level of service
  • Investment in additional railcars (five _at_ 5M
    each 25M) required to achieve full ridership
  • Relatively low cost to double ridership capacity
  • Ability to cost-effectively further increase
    capacity as needed

20
9. Can we please have the details on the
alternatives so we can see how they stacked up
against the Green Line proposal?
21
9. Can we please have the details on the
alternatives so we can see how they stacked up
against the Green Line proposal?
22
12. What are the logical corridors for rail, and
how do they fit into a system of moving people.
(We should be sure to preserve those corridors.)
  • Existing rail corridors
  • Austin-Manor-Elgin
  • Austin-Leander and beyond
  • UP
  • MOKAN
  • Bergstrom Spur
  • Major regional travel corridors connecting
    activity centers
  • 290 to Oak Hill, 183, others
  • Urban corridors with transit-supportive land use
  • Riverside, Lamar, others
  • Fit within integrated transportation - land use
    plan
  • Mixed-use, walkable activity centers connected by
    transit
  • Urban corridors with vertical mixed use
  • Connections to/from downtown Austin
  • Coordination / integration with other modes (park
    rides, transit centers, rail stations)

23
Questions typically addressed as part of a NEPA
investigation
24
2. How does the rail proposal compare to a BRT
service in terms of air quality impact? Other
impacts and costs?
  • Rail can reduce corridor VMT by 113 to 194
    million, also reducing related emissions
  • Public transit reduces air pollutants
    significantly on a per passenger mile basis in
    corridor applications compared to private autos
  • 95 less carbon monoxide
  • 90 less volatile organic compounds
  • 45 less nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide
  • More detailed analysis part of NEPA process
  • Source - APTA 2002

25
Questions typically addressed as part of a
refined financial analysis
26
3. How could the project be funded, what is the
role of TIF (tax increment financing) and what
are the ramifications of using that approach?
  • 2006 Capital Metro study (Austin to Manor)
    findings
  • 16 more development in corridor with rail than
    without
  • 70 of the initial construction costs could be
    funded by a TIF
  • In addition,the Elgin Economic Development
    Corporation conducted an analysis of development
    potential around the Elgin station
  • Elgin study area, if developed using TOD type
    density, could increase the tax base by over
    650M compared to more traditional suburban
    sprawl
  • 2.4M in annual revenue to the city was also
    estimated
  • TIFs impact on general fund must be considered
  • Costs of related infrastructure to support
    development related to new mobility must also be
    considered
  • More detail forthcoming as financing plan
    developed

27
3. How could the project be funded, what is the
role of TIF (tax increment financing) and what
are the ramifications of using that approach?
Impact of Development Type on Public
Infrastructure Costs
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, December
2005
As also documented in the Elgin TOD study,
transit-supportive development reduces government
subsidy and lessens per capita infrastructure
requirements.
28
Thank You
About PowerShow.com