Capital MetroRail Green Line

1
Capital MetroRail Green Line
CAMPO Transit Working Group December 2008
2
Capital MetroRail Green Line Passenger
RailStatement 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 PlanCapital Metros All
  Systems Go! Plan
• 2. CORRIDOR PLANNING (2 - 10 project
  detail)Alternatives AnalysisEnvironmental
  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