April 2017 May 2017 Version 2

Transcription

1 Preliminary Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluation Memorandum April 2017 May 2017 Version 2

2

3 TABLE OF REVISIONS Document: Draft Enhancement Project and Investment Corridor Identification Methodology Memorandum Version Date Issued Description of Revision Affected Section(s) Page #s Document updated as a result of feedback from the April 26 th TAC/MCAC meetings Regional Equity is now called Regional Connectivity 3.1 & 4.2 6, V2 5/10/2017 Airport Boulevard now received a MEDIUM for Regional Connectivity Airport Boulevard is a Tier 1 Project 4 4 and 5 13,14-16 MLK Jr. was mislabeled as a Tier 2, it was a Tier 1 and this has been corrected. 4 and 5 14,16,19

4

5 Contents 1. Introduction Project Area, Context and Description Phase 1 Evaluation Overview Quantitative Evaluation Qualitative Approach Qualitative Evaluation Methodologies and Results Regional Connectivity Methodology Funding Opportunities Methodology Special Considerations Operational Considerations Constructability Considerations Right-of-Way Ownership Development Considerations Community Support Investment Corridors Methodology Enhancement Project Methodology Phase 1 Evaluation Results Quantitative Evaluation Results Qualitative Evaluation Results Phase 1 Results Final Tier 1 Investment Corridors and Enhancement Projects Additional Considerations 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#

6 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 Figure 4: Qualitative Evaluation and Final Tier Process Figure 5: Phase 1 Recommendation Approval Process List of Tables Table 1: Phase1 Quantitative Evaluation Scoring... 4 Table 2: Preliminary Tier 1 Investment Corridors Table 3: Preliminary Tier 1 Enhancement Projects Table 4: Phase 1 Qualitative Results Investment Corridors Table 5: Phase 1 Qualitative Results Enhancement Projects Table 6: (Draft) Final Tier 1 Investment Corridors Table 7: (Draft) Final Tier 1 Enhancement Projects Doc Control#

7 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. 1 Doc Control#

8 Figure 1: 2010 Average Daily Trips between Study and Focus Areas 2 Doc Control#

9 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 twopronged 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 3 Doc Control#

10 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 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 4 Doc Control#

11 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 Highly benefits existing high-capacity transit transit services and facilities services Tier 2 Moderately supports dedicated high-capacity Moderately benefits existing high-capacity transit services and facilities transit services Tier 3 Minimal support for dedicated high-capacity Minimal benefits to existing high-capacity transit services and facilities 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. 5 Doc Control#

12 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 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,, 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. Project or Corridor supports regional high-capacity transit services between emerging regional centers. This ranking also includes projects that only serve the downtown core. These Projects or Corridors do not provide direct connections between regional centers and 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 Methodology The evaluation assesses each project s Eligibility and Competitiveness for four categories of project funding: local, private, state, and federal. 6 Doc Control#

13 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. Local Federal Eligibility and Competitiveness Private State Each Project and Corridor was assessed (Low,, 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 High Low Funding Opportunity Definitions Strongly supports local planning efforts and transit system operating efficiency, Likely to meet eligibility thresholds for funding local state and/or federal mechanisms Moderately supports local planning efforts and transit system operating efficiency, Meets some eligibility thresholds for funding local state and/or federal mechanisms 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 7 Doc Control#

14 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 barriers 3. 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 quantitative data The team assigned a score of High,, 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 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 (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,, 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 8 Doc Control#

15 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 making transit 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 Low Corridor could have independent utility if combined with another corridor Corridor does not have independent utility Addresses two (2) enhancement A-C-R types Addresses one (1) enhancement A-C-R type 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 for many 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 Low Corridor crosses a major freeway Corridor crosses either a freight rail line or a major waterway Presence of potential barriers, potentially mitigated Presence of potentially significant barriers, unmitigated or cost/construction prohibitive 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 High Low ROW Ownership CMTA owned ROW Public Agency owned ROW Privately owned ROW 9 Doc Control#

16 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//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 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.) 10 Doc Control#

17 The results were tabulated and then compared against the results from other Corridors within the same market type to determine a High//Low score 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 4 th workshop Georeferenced stickers from March 4 th 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 11 Doc Control#

18 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//Low score. 12 Doc Control#

19 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 Projects 2 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 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) 13 Doc Control#

20 Table 2: Preliminary Tier 1 Investment Corridors Circulator Commuter Connector ID Name ID Name ID Name N Lamar / Guadalupe Highland / Red River / Trinity Oltorf Red River S Congress IH 35 Metrorail Red Line (double track) th 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 14 Doc Control#

21 4.2 Qualitative Evaluation Results All Implementation and Operations evaluation criteria were scored on a High//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) 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//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 15 Doc Control#

22 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 High High High High 1 16 Highland / Red River / Trinity High High High High 1 14 Oltorf Low Low Low Low Low th Low Low Low 2 15 Pleasant Valley Low Low Low Low 2 10 Congress High High High High 1 18 Riverside High High High High 1 13 MLK Jr Airport Blvd High High High 1 3 7th / Lake Austin High High High High 1 17 Manor / Dean Keeton High High High 1 9 Cesar Chavez High th / Burnet High High High 1 11 S Lamar High High High High 1 2 S 1st St Low th / 38th Low Low Low st Low Low Low 3 1 E 12th St Low 3 8 Bergstrom Spur Low High Low 3 Circulator Corridors 22 Red River Circulator Low High High 1 21 S Congress Circulator High 1 20 Downtown Circulator High High High High 1 29 Domain Circulator Low High High 2 Commuter Corridors 25 IH High High High 1 28 Red Line (double track) High High High 1 23 Airport Line High High Low 2 24 MoKan Line High Low Low 2 26 Green Line High Low High High High 1 27 UPRR High High Low Low 2 16 Doc Control#

23 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 High 1 MD 5 S 1st St - Priority treatments Low 1 MD 6 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) - Extend existing TPLs Low High 1 MD 8 W. MLK Jr Blvd (Guadalupe / Lavaca) - Intersection upgrades Low 1 MD 10 N Lamar Blvd (Crestview) - Intersection upgrades High 2 MD 7 Guadalupe St (The Drag) - Priority treatments Low High 2 MD 4 W Riverside Dr - Priority treatments Low High 2 MD 2 S Congress Ave - Priority treatments High High 3 MD 3 Barton Springs Rd - Priority treatments Low 3 MD 1 S Lamar Blvd - Priority treatments High 3 Metro Express Enhancements ME 3 35th St, Mopac - Guadalupe Low Low Low Low 2 ME 7 US 183 (N) High Low Low 1 ME 2 W. 5th St & W. Cesar Chavez, Mopac - Guadalupe Low High Low 1 ME 6 US 290 E High Low Low 3 ME 1 MoPac (N) High Low Low 3 ME 4 MoPac (S) High Low Low 3 ME 5 US 290 W High 3 Metro Rail Enhancements ML 1 Rail Station Capacity Projects High High High High 1 ML 6 Proposed Hancock Station Low High 2 ML 2 Passing Siding High Low High 2 ML 4 Proposed Highland Station High Low High 3 ML 3 Proposed Domain / Broadmoor Station High High High 2 ML 5 Proposed Braker Station Low High 3 Mobility Hub Enhancements MH 2 W 4th St (Republic Square) Low High 1 MH 3 W 4th Street Low Low High 1 MH 9 North Lamar T.C Low Low High 1 MH 6 Tech Ride P&R Low Low Low 2 MH 1 W 4th St (DT MR Station) High Low High 1 MH 21 Rundberg Low Low Low 2 MH 11 Leander Station High Low Low High 1 MH 10 Westgate T.C High 1 MH 4 Crestview High High High High 1 MH 17 South Lamar Low High 2 MH 12 South Congress T.C Low High 2 MH 18 Elgin P&R Low Low Low Low 3 MH 13 Highland Low High High 2 MH 7 Lakeline Station High Low High 2 MH 8 Howard P&R High Low High 2 MH 14 UT Austin High 2 MH 15 Southpark Meadows High 2 MH 16 Kramer High High 2 MH 20 Pavilion P&R Low 3 17 Doc Control#

24 ID Name PH. 1 Quantitative Preliminary Tier Regional Score (1, 2, 3) Connectivity Community Support Funding Opportunities Special Considerations Qualitative Rating Final Tier MH 22 Anderson Low 3 MH 23 The Domain Low High High 3 MH 5 Domain High Low 3 MH 19 Manor Walmart Low Low Low 3 18 Doc Control#

25 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 N Lamar / Guadalupe Highland / Red River / Trinity Congress Red River 18 Riverside IH 35 S Congress 13 MLK Jr Metrorail Red Line (double track) Downtown 7 Airport Blvd Green Line Circulator 3 7 th / Lake Austin Manor / Dean Keeton 45 th / 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 to Guadalupe) 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: 19 Doc Control#

26 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. 20 Doc Control#

27 Appendix A: Project Connect Alternative Evaluation Framework Project Connect Phase 1 Evaluation Criteria and FTA CIG Project Development Criteria A-1 Doc Control#

28 25 pts Goals Customer Experience Possible Points Project Connect Criteria Impact on existing riders Network / system compatibility Project Connect Evaluation Measure # of average daily boardings per mile at stops/stations along the Corridor # of Connection 2025 routes that the Corridor would connect to (weighted) FTA Project Justification Criteria Mobility and Cost Effectiveness Mobility and Congestion Relief 25 pts Reliability 10 Transit travel time and on-time performance 15 Guideway 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) Weighted assessment available ROW (minimize need for loss of lanes or reconfiguration) Congestion Relief Cost Effectiveness 25 pts Sustainability 10 Environmental factors 15 Service equity Assessment of potential impacts to floodplains, wetlands, parks, waterways, and historic resources (NRHP) (H = 1; M = 5; L = 10) # of zero car households; # of households below poverty; # of minority populations per sq mile Environmental Benefits Environmental Benefits 10 Existing population and employment Number of existing residents and jobs per mile within a half-mile of the Corridor Existing Land Use 25 pts Land Use & Policy 5 5 Future population and employment Economic development and land use Number of forecast residents and jobs per mile within a half-mile of the Corridor % of land that is transit-supportive; % of publicly-owned land, # of emerging projects Economic Development Effects 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-0 Doc Control# 437.2

29 FTA Capital Improvement Grant (CIG) Program -- Evaluation Criteria Minimum Rating of required for both project justification and local financial commitment FTA Project Justification Criteria: What do they measure? A-1 Doc Control# 437.2

30 Appendix B: Phase 1 Quantitative Evaluation Summary B-1 Doc Control# You c

31 Project Connect Draft Phase 1 Evaluation Results 2/24/2017 Investment Corridors: COMMUTERS Step 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal) Step 1: Tiered Results ID Corridor Name Customer Experience Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy TOTAL IH Red Line (double track) Airport Line MoKan Line Green Line UPRR ID Corridor Name Regional Connectivity Step 2: Qualitative Analysis Implementation & Operations Community Support Funding Step 2: Tiered Results Special Considerations Opportunities IH Red Line (double track) 23 Airport Line 24 MoKan Line 26 Green Line 27 UPRR 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 Final recommendations for Phase 2 analysis will include ALL public feedback (end of March) Doc Control#

32 Project Connect Draft Phase 1 Evaluation Results 2/24/2017 Investment Corridors: CONNECTORS ID Corridor Name Step 1: Quantitative Analysis Goals Customer Experience Step 1: Tiered Results Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy TOTAL Regional Connectivity 12 N Lamar / Guadalupe Step 2: Qualitative Analysis Implementation & Operations Community Support Funding Opportunities Special Considerations Step 2: Tiered Results Highland / Red River / Trinity Oltorf th Pleasant Valley Congress Riverside MLK Jr Airport Blvd th / Lake Austin Manor / Dean Keeton Cesar Chavez th / Burnet S Lamar S 1st St th / 38th st E 12th St Bergstrom Spur 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 Final recommendations for Phase 2 analysis will include ALL public feedback (end of March) Doc Control#

33 Project Connect 2/24/2017 Draft Phase 1 Evaluation Results Investment Corridors: CIRCULATORS ID Corridor Name Step 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal) Customer Experience Step 1: Tiered Results Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy TOTAL Red River S Congress Circulator Downtown Circulator Domain Circulator ID Corridor Name Step 2: Qualitative Analysis Implementation & Operations Regional Connectivity Community Support Funding Opportunities Special Considerations Step 2: Tiered Results Red River 21 S Congress Circulator 20 Downtown Circulator 29 Domain Circulator 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 Final recommendations for Phase 2 analysis will include ALL public feedback (end of March) Doc Control#

34 Project Connect Draft Phase 1 Evaluation 2/24/17 Enhancement Projects: MetroRapid ID Project Name Step 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal) Customer Experience Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy Step 1: Tiered Results TOTAL Regional Connectivity Step 2: Qualitative Analysis Implementation & Operations Community Support Funding Opportunities Special Considerations Step 2: Tiered Results MD 9 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) Activate TSP MD 5 S 1st St Priority treatments MD 6 MD 8 MD 10 Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) Extend existing TPLs W. MLK Jr Blvd (Guadalupe / Lavaca) Intersection upgrades N Lamar Blvd (Crestview) Intersection upgrades MD 7 Guadalupe St (The Drag) Priority treatments MD 4 W Riverside Dr Priority treatments MD 2 S Congress Ave Priority treatments MD 3 Barton Springs Rd Priority treatments MD 1 S Lamar Blvd Priority treatments 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 Final recommendations for Phase 2 analysis will include ALL public feedback (end of March) Doc Control #436.06

35 Project Connect Draft Phase 1 Evaluation 2/24/17 Enhancement Projects: MetroRail Step 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal) Step 1: Tiered Results Step 2: Qualitative Analysis Implementation & Operations Step 2: Tiered Results ID Project Name Customer Experience Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy TOTAL Regional Connectivity Community Support Funding Opportunities Special Considerations ML 1 Rail Station Capacity Projects ML 6 Proposed Hancock Station ML 2 Passing Siding ML 4 Proposed Highland Station ML 3 Proposed Domain / Broadmoor Station ML 5 Proposed Braker Station 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 Final recommendations for Phase 2 analysis will include ALL public feedback (end of March) Doc Control #436.06

36 Project Connect Draft Phase 1 Evaluation 2/24/17 Enhancement Projects: MetroExpress ID Project Name Step 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal) Customer Experience Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy Step 1: Tiered Results TOTAL Regional Connectivity Step 2: Qualitative Analysis Implementation & Operations Community Support Funding Opportunities Special Considerations Step 2: Tiered Results ME 3 35th St, Mopac Guadalupe ME 7 US 183 (N) ME 2 W. 5th St, Mopac Guadalupe W. Cesar Chavez, Mopac Guadalupe ME 6 US 290 E ME 1 MoPac (N) ME 4 MoPac (S) ME 5 US 290 W 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 Final recommendations for Phase 2 analysis will include ALL public feedback (end of March) Doc Control #436.06

37 Project Connect Draft Phase 1 Evaluation 2/24/17 Enhancement Projects: Mobility Hubs ID Project Name Step 1: Quantitative Analysis (by Goal) Customer Experience Reliability Sustainability Land Use and Policy Step 1: Tiered Results TOTAL Regional Connectivity MH 2 W 4th St (Republic Square) Step 2: Qualitative Analysis Implementation & Operations Community Support Funding Opportunities Special Considerations Step 2: Tiered Results MH 3 W 4th Street 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 MH 10 Westgate T.C MH 4 Crestview MH 17 South Lamar MH 12 South Congress T.C MH 18 Elgin P&R MH 13 Highland MH 7 Lakeline Station MH 8 Howard P&R MH 14 UT Austin MH 15 Southpark Meadows MH 16 Kramer MH 20 Pavilion P&R MH 22 Anderson MH 23 The Domain MH 5 Domain MH 19 Manor Walmart 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 Final recommendations for Phase 2 analysis will include ALL public feedback (end of March) Doc Control #436.06

38 Appendix C: Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluation Detail Results Regional Connectivity, Funding Opportunities, Special Considerations Doc Control# 437.2

39 REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY - INVESTMENT Corridor ID Description Rating Notes 1 E 12th St Corridor does connect to the downtown core but does not significantly connect to regional or emerging activity centers 2 S 1st St Corridor provides service to the downtown core from Ben White 3 7th / Lake Austin Corridor only serves downtown Austin 4 15th 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 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 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 Corridor supports regional connectivity to the Central core. MD 803 provides high capacity transit along this route. Corridor supports regional connectivity to the Central core. MD N Lamar / Guadalupe High provides high capacity transit along this route. Corridor connects to the downtown core and many activity centers (potentially emerging centers) but is not served by high frequency 13 MLK Jr. transit 14 Oltorf Low Corridor does not connect to the downtown core and does not impact activity centers 15 Pleasant Valley 16 Highland / Red River / Trinity High 17 Manor / Dean Keeton Corridor does not connect to the downtown core but provides high frequency transit (300 and 320) on the city's eastern side. Corridor supports regional connectivity to the Central core. It also connects to multiple activity centers and the downtown core 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 Corridor serves regional activity center (North Burnet Gateway) 20 Downtown Circulator Corridor only serves downtown Austin 21 S Congress Circulator Corridor only serves downtown Austin 22 Red River 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 Corridor serves downtown Austin and provides conections to multiple activity centers and emerging regional centers 26 Green Line High Corridor serves downtown Austin and provides conections to 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 multiple activity centers and emerging regional centers 29 Domain Circulator Corridor serves the regional activity center of the Domain Doc Control# 437.2

40 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - investments CID Name Independent Utility? Natural/Physical Barriers? ROW Ownership Recent Transit-Supportive Development? 1 E 12th St S 1st St th / Lake Austin High 4 15th Low 5 35th / 38th Low 6 51st Low 7 Airport Blvd Low 8 Bergstrom Spur Low 9 Cesar Chavez Congress S Lamar High 12 N Lamar / Guadalupe MLK Jr Low 14 Oltorf Low 15 Pleasant Valley Low 16 Highland / Red River / Trinity Manor / Dean Keeton Riverside th / Burnet High Total Overall SC Score Notes Barriers: IH35, Red Line (Freight RR) Barriers: Lady Bird Lake Barriers: Mopac, IH35 Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC Barriers: IH35 Barriers: None Barriers: IH35 Barriers: IH35 Barriers: IH35, US 183 Barriers: IH35 Barriers: Lady Bird Lake Referenda: 2000 LPA LRT Referendum (lost by less than 1%) Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC Barriers: None (UPRR freight RR already grade separated) Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC Barriers: Red Line (Freight RR) Referenda: 2000 LPA LRT Referendum (lost by less than 1%) Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC Barriers: IH35, Red Line (Freight RR) Barriers: IH35 Barriers: Lady Bird Lake (Longhorn Dam) Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC Barriers: Lady Bird Lake (New Crossing); Red Line (Freight RR) Referenda: Rejected in 2014 Bond Election Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC Barriers: IH35 Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC Barriers: IH35 Referenda: Rejected in 2014 Bond Election Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC Barriers: None Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC 20 Downtown Circulator High 21 S Congress Circulator Low 22 Red River High 29 Domain Circulator Airport Line Low 24 MoKan Line IH High 26 Green Line High 27 UPRR Red Line (double track) High Barriers: None Development: Downtown Core Barriers: Lady Bird Lake Development: VMU/S Central Waterfront Master Plan Barriers: None Development: Dell Medical School, Brackenridge Redevelopment Barriers: Mopac, US 183, UPRR Freight Line Development: Several VMU Complexes recently built or UC Barriers: Colorado River (New Crossing) Barriers: None Barriers: Lady Bird Lake Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC (Downtown & adjacent) Barriers: None Barriers: Lady Bird Lake Development: Several VMU complexes recently built or UC Barriers: UPRR freight rail Development: Established TOD regulations/developments Doc Control# 437.2

41 REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY- INVESTMENTS ID Name Ranking Notes Metro Rapid Enhancements Guadalupe St (SB) / MD 9 Lavaca (NB) - Activate Provides enhancements in activity center and is on high frequency routes (MD 803 and 801) TSP MD 5 S 1st St - Priority treatments 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 the segment is in an activity center and has two high frequency routes (MD 801 and MD 803) existing TPLs MD 8 W. MLK Jr Blvd (Guadalupe / Lavaca) - Intersection upgrades Provides enhancements in activity center and is on high frequency routes (MD 803 and 801) MD 10 MD 7 MD 4 MD 2 MD 3 MD 1 N Lamar Blvd (Crestview) - Intersection upgrades Guadalupe St (The Drag) - Priority treatments W Riverside Dr - Priority treatments S Congress Ave - Priority treatments Barton Springs Rd - Priority treatments S Lamar Blvd - Priority treatments 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 Provides enhancements in activity center and is on high frequency routes (MD 803 and 801) only serves Austin but will improve high frequency travel into downtown Provides enhancements in activity centers and is on a high frequency route (MD 801) Only serves Austin core but provides high frequency transit, which could improve connections from hinterlands to the core this segment provides high frequency transit service (MD 801 ). It is an important route between southern areas in the region to the downtown core Metro Express Enhancements ME 3 35th St, Mopac - Guadalupe Low 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 - Provides enhancements along MoPAC, a major thoroughfare in the region Guadalupe 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 Metro Rail Enhancements ML 1 Rail Station Capacity Projects High site is in downtown core and activity centers. Would provide connections to MetroRail and overall regional connectivity ML 6 Proposed Hancock Station 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 4 Proposed Highland Station High connects to MetroRail line and is in activity center. Enhancements will be part of overall regional connectivity ML 3 Proposed Domain / Broadmoor Station 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 Enhancements support activity centers and would connect to MetroRail, improving regional connectivity Mobility Hub Enhancements MH 2 W 4th St (Republic Square) 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 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. 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 Provides enhancements in activity center and is on a high frequency route (MD 803) MH 12 South Congress T.C. hub is on TX 71, a major roadway in the region and improvements would provide increased regional connectivity MH 18 Elgin P&R Hub is located in Elgin activity center, an emerging center and the terminus of Green Line improvement MH 13 Highland 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 this segment provides high frequency transit services (MD 801 and MD 803) MH 15 Southpark Meadows Provides enhancements in activity center and is on a high frequency route (MD 801) MH 16 Kramer station enhancements will support overall regional connectivity MH 20 Pavilion P&R Enhancements provide parking facilities to support regional connectivity MH 22 Anderson 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 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 Doc Control# 437.2

42 Project Connect Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluations SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS ID Name Description MD 1 MD 2 MD 3 MD 4 MD 5 MD 6 MD 7 MD 8 MD 9 MD 10 S Lamar Blvd - Priority treatments S Congress Ave - Priority treatments Barton Springs Rd - Priority treatments W Riverside Dr - Priority treatments S 1st St - Priority treatments Add'l Stations + Upgrades Transit Priority Lanes Add'l Stations + Upgrades Transit Priority Lanes Station Upgrades Transit Priority Lanes Intersection Upgrades Transit Priority Lanes Intersection Upgrades Transit Priority Lanes Traffic Signal Upgrades A-C-R Impacts Natural & Recent Transit-Supportive ROW Ownership Physical Barriers Development Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) - Transit Priority Lanes Extend existing TPLs Guadalupe St (The Drag) - Priority treatments W. MLK Jr Blvd (Guadalupe / Lavaca) - Intersection upgrades Station Upgrades Transit Priority Lanes Intersection Upgrades Guadalupe St (SB) / Lavaca (NB) - Traffic Signal Priority Activate TSP N Lamar Blvd (Crestview) - Intersection upgrades Intersection Upgrades Pedestrian Safety Total Rating NOTES Low A-C-R: Connect, Ride Barriers: N/A Referenda: Supported by 2016 Mobility Bond Program Development: several mixed use developments (several hundred units) at Bluebonnet, Broken Spoke, Gibson, etc.. A-C-R: Connect, Ride Barriers: N/A Referenda: supported by 2000 LRT plan LPA Development: S. Congress redevelopment between Riverside Dr & Annie St. A-C-R: Connect, Ride Barriers: N/A Referenda: Supported by All Systems Go (2004) A-C-R: Connect, Ride Barriers: N/A Referenda: Supported by All Systems Go (2004), 2016 Mobility Bond Program Development: South River Development (TxDOT property) A-C-R: Connect, Ride Barriers: Colorado River (1st St bridge) Referenda: Supported by All Systems Go (2004) A-C-R: Ride Barriers: Existing 1-way traffic operations Referenda: Supported by LRT Plan LPA (2000) A-C-R: Connect, Ride Barriers: N/A Referenda: Supported by 2016 Mobility Bond Program A-C-R: Ride Barriers: UT campus constructon adjacent to intersection Referenda: Supported by Supported by LRT Plan LPA (2000), All Systems Go (2004), 2016 Mobility Bond Program A-C-R: Ride Barriers: Existing 1-way traffic operations Referenda: Supported by LRT Plan LPA (2000), Supported by All Systems Go (2004), 2016 Mobility Bond Program A-C-R: Connect, Ride Barriers: at-grade RR crossing with MetroRail Red Line Referenda: Supported by LRT Plan LPA (2000), Supported by All Systems Go (2004), 2016 Mobility Bond Program Development: Recent multifamily unit construction ME 1 MoPac (N) Managed Lane Operations ME 2 W. 5th St, Mopac - Guadalupe W. Cesar Chavez, Mopac - Guadalupe Transit Priority Lanes ME 3 35th St, Mopac - Guadalupe Transit Priority Lanes ME 4 MoPac (S) Managed Lane Operations ME 5 US 290 W Managed Lane Operations ME 6 US 290 E Managed Lane Operations ME 7 US 183 (N) Managed Lane Operations Low Low Low Low Low Low Low A-C-R: Ride Barriers: Limited access points (Parmer, FM 2222, Cesar Chavez / 5th St) A-C-R: Ride Barriers: Existing 1-way traffic operations; Direct access/egress connections to MoPac A-C-R: Ride Barriers: Direct access/egress connections to MoPac A-C-R: Ride Barriers: Managed Lanes not in operation A-C-R: Ride Barriers: Managed Lanes not in operation A-C-R: Ride Barriers: Limited Access Points (Manor Park & Ride, DT Austin) A-C-R: Ride Barriers: Managed Lanes not in operation Doc Control # 437.2

43 Project Connect Phase 1 Qualitative Evaluations SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS ID Name Description A-C-R Impacts Natural & Physical Barriers ROW Ownership Recent Transit-Supportive Development ML 1 Rail Station Capacity Projects Station Capacity Upgrades ML 2 Passing Siding Rail Passing Tracks (Sidings) ML 3 Proposed Domain / Broadmoor Station Station Relocation ML 4 Proposed Highland Station Station Relocation ML 5 Proposed Braker Station Add'l Station ML 6 Proposed Hancock Station Add'l Station Total Rating NOTES High High High High A-C-R: Connect Barriers: N/A Referenda: Supported by 2004 All Systems Go A-C-R: Ride Barriers: limited areas w/row for construction Referenda: Supported by 2004 All Systems Go A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A Referenda: existing Kramer station supported by 2004 All Systems Go Development: Potential private interest to relocate station A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A Development: ACC Highland redevelopment plan A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A Development: More accessible to new development at The Domain A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: Site is adjacent to I-35 (potential accessibility issues) MH 1 W 4th St (DT MR Station) Sabine St MH 2 W 4th St (Republic Square) San Antonio St MH 3 W 4th Street San Antonio St MH 4 Crestview Airport Blvd MH 5 Domain MH 6 Tech Ride P&R MH 7 Lakeline Station MH 8 Howard P&R MH 9 North Lamar T.C MH 10 Westgate T.C MH 11 Leander Station MH 12 South Congress T.C MH 13 Highland MH 14 UT Austin MH 15 Southpark Meadows MH 16 Kramer MH 17 South Lamar MH 18 Elgin P&R MH 19 Manor Walmart MH 20 Pavilion P&R MH 21 Rundberg MH 22 Anderson MH 23 The Domain High Low Low A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Ride Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A Development: Recent multifamily unit construction A-C-R: Connect Barriers: N/A Development: Recent mixed use and multifamily unit construction A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A Development: Recent multifamily unit construction A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: Site is land locked adjacent to US 183 (limited accessibility) A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A Development: Recent multifamiliy unit construction A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A Development: ACC Highland redevelopment plan A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: Site adjacent to US 290 (potential accessibility issues) A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: Site adjacent to US 290 (potential accessibility issues) A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: Site adjacent to US 183 (potential accessibility issues) A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: N/A A-C-R: Access, Connect Barriers: Site adjacent to MoPac (potential accessibilty issues) Doc Control # 437.2

44 Funding Opportunities 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 Local Federal Eligibility and Competitiveness Private State Each Project and Corridor was assessed (Low,, 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 Parking Benefit District Corridor Improvement Program Downtown Public Improvement 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 A program that expands metered on-street parking within a set geographic area A modernization program that assesses transportation needs within a corridor and identifies projects to modernize the corridor for all users A program that establishes a geographic boundary in which properties are assessed an additional $0.10 per $100 in assessed value Infrastructure projects located within geographic boundaries Transportation and streetscape assets located within geographic boundaries Transportation assets located within corridor Public services and land use improvements located within geographic boundaries C-2 Doc Control# 437.2

45 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 Long-range generator of activity and University sense of place for a neighborhood Institutional partner Property manager for multi-family housing development / region 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: C-3 Doc Control# 437.2

46 Create revenue for private partner Reduce cost for public partner Reduce risk for project lifecycle P3 Opportunity 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 less than (2) years old Sources of available non-committed funds or financial capacity (debt capacity, 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: C-4 Doc Control# 437.2

47 Assessed Capital and Operating Performance Rating (FTA CIG Conditions CMTA Performance Guidance) Average Bus Fleet Age 8.37 Years -Low Bond ratings less than 2 years old Bond ratings less than 2 years old Positive cash flow ($48.95 million) Low Total Annual Operating Expenses $ million -- Total Annual Operating Revenues $ 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 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 High Project Criteria Project is included on several long range transportation plans and/or community planning 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/or state 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 the criteria C-5 Doc Control# 437.2

48 Scoring Assignment Low Project Criteria Project is included on a small number of long range transportation plans and/or community 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 local and/or state funding mechanism Facilitates some efficiency with connections with other transit routes/services Meets some FTA eligibility criteria but not others Project is included on two or fewer long range transportation plans and/or community planning 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 funding mechanism 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. < Austin Financial Services Department. Tax Increment Financing (TIFs). Presentation to Austin City Council Work Session. June 25, < Austin Transportation Department. Corridor Improvement Program. < Austin Transportation Department. Parking Benefit Districts. < Austin Transportation Department Bond Programs and Projects. < Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. < Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Year Ended September 30, < pdf> Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Connections 2025 Draft Plan. < City of Austin. Mueller Redevelopment Project Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone No. 16. Final Project Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan. August < City of Austin. Seaholm Redevelopment Project Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone No. 18. Final Project Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan. March < City of Austin. Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone No. 17 (Waller Creek Tunnel Project). Final Project Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan. March < City of Austin. Civic Capital Improvements. < C-6 Doc Control# 437.2

49 Federal Transit Administration. Grant Programs. < Florida Transit Information System. Urban Integrated National Transit Database. < Reconnecting America. Transit Technologies Worksheet. < Texas Department of Transportation. State Infrastructure Bank. < Texas Department of Transportation. Texas Mobility Fund. < Washington State Joint Transportation Committee. Evaluation of Public Private Partnerships. January C-7 Doc Control# 437.2

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

51 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, In general, the community support criterion relied on the following sources of data: Comment Cards from March 4 th workshop Georeferenced stickers from March 4 th 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#

52 Community Support Process Comment Cards from March 4th workshop Comments were collected from participants at the March 4 th 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 4 th Traffic Jam Workshop Maps Two maps were presented at the March 4 th 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 D-1 Doc Control#

53 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 Connect MetroRapid stop at Lamar/Justin North East Description of Comment needs safer crossover lights/timing coordinating with ATD Comment Database combine local and rapid stops everywhere -- no more separate stops; shade structures at every stop Recorded in CMD DOT ID X 67 D-2 Doc Control#

54 Sample Traffic Jam ACR Survey Form D-3 Doc Control#

55 Sample Traffic Jam ACS Sticky Dot Map D-4 Doc Control#