capital metro downtown multimodal stationdowntownaustin.com/sites/default/files/cmta downtown...

Capital Metro Downtown Multimodal

StationStakeholder Briefing

December 11, 2015

Agenda

Project Summary

Downtown Station Concept Evaluation

4th Street Traffic Analysis


Next Steps

1

2

3

4

5

2

Project Summary

3

Downtown Multimodal Station

Project Goals & Objectives

• 5-minute terminal arrival / departure headway

• Platforms to accommodate longer 2-vehicle consists

Address near- and long- term MetroRailoperational needs

• Movements of various modes are not compatible in constrained space

Address existing safety issues and modal conflicts (pedestrian, bicycle, transit, auto)

• Additional rail and local circulator routes

Accommodate future multimodal needs

• Great Streets principles

Improve aesthetics and compatibility with urban context

1 2 3 4

PROJECT SUMMARY 4

Concept 1

• 3 platform positions that accommodate (future) 2-car consists • Vacate auto access on 4th St (between Red River and Trinity)• Pedestrian and transit queuing Plaza (Neches to Trinity)• Lance Armstrong Bikeway (modified for enhanced safety and

awareness through platform/plaza area)

PROJECT SUMMARY 5

Concept 2

• 3 platform positions that accommodate (future) 2-car consists • Shared-use auto/bicycle access on 4th St (Sabine to Neches)• Pedestrian and transit queuing Plaza (Neches to Trinity)• Lance Armstrong Bikeway (modified for enhanced safety and

awareness through platform/plaza area)

PROJECT SUMMARY 6

Project Context

PROJECT SUMMARY 7

Downtown Station Concept Evaluation


8

9

Concept Confirmation Process

• Concept Confirmation Process• Building Support• Public Involvement• Public & Stakeholder Input

Concept Confirmation Strategy

• Safety• Station Operations• Traffic & Accessibility• Context Sensitive Compatibility

Technical Evaluation Criteria

1 2

DOWNTOWN STATION CONCEPT EVALUATION

Concept Confirmation

Concept Confirmation Process


Technical Evaluation Criteria

Public Input

Stakeholder/Agency Input

Preferred Concept

10

Building Support

• Austin Transportation Department• Austin Fire Department, Police

Department and EMS • Austin Convention Center• Austin Energy• Hilton Hotel• City of Austin Economic Development• City of Austin Parks and Recreation• City of Austin Public Works

• City of Austin ROW• City of Austin Special Events • City of Austin Urban Design / Great

Streets• City of Austin Watershed Protection• Downtown Austin Alliance• TxDOT• Waller Creek Conservancy

Recent Stakeholder Coordination

DOWNTOWN STATION CONCEPT EVALUATION 11

Public & Stakeholder Input

• Many recognize the benefits of a conflict-free pedestrian space

• Stakeholders and coordinating agencies in favor of safety improvements and supporting multimodal mobility improvements

• Some public input has expressed traffic concerns with removing autos from this segment 4th street.

Concept Preference

No Preference

12%

Concept 169%

Concept 219%

Citizen Feedback


“I like the idea of having more

pedestrian area. The vehicle lane isn’t really that useful anyway.”

“I lean more toward this

concept to free more space for pedestrians and

bikes.”

“Seems like a better use of

space but worried about flow of extra

traffic displaced from lane of

street. Good park space.”

12

13

Concept Confirmation -Technical Evaluation Criteria

1. Safety

a. Mitigation of Multimodal Conflicts

b. Rail Crossing Protection Requirements

2. Station Operations

a. MetroRail Station and Platform

b. Multimodal Access to Project Area

3. Traffic & Accessibility

4. Context-Sensitive Compatibility

a. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Auto Circulation

b. Lane Configurations and Utility

c. Stakeholder Accessibility

a. Mitigate Impacts to Adjacent Projects and Stakeholders

b. Great Streets Compatibility

c. Supportive of Future Development

1 2 3 4


14

Technical Evaluation – Safety

Evaluation Metric DescriptionConcept 1

(Vacate Auto Access on 4th)

Concept 2 (Restricted Auto Access on 4th)

Multimodal conflict mitigation

Minimize pedestrian / bicycle conflicts through platform boarding area

Minimize pedestrian / auto conflicts

Minimize bicycle / auto conflicts

Emergency access / egressSupports efficient access / egress to/from platform area Supports efficient access / egress to/from adjacent facilities

Rail crossing protectionMinimize train control / signalization needs

Minimize intersection crossing protection needs

Concept 1 is preferred:

• Reduces potential automobile conflicts with pedestrians and bicycles

• Allows wider boarding areas and pedestrian passage at platforms in front of Convention Center and Hilton Austin


15

Technical Evaluation – Station Operations




MetroRail station platform

Number of boarding locations supports CMTA long-term needs

Center platform width

Minimize station platform access / egress conflicts

Auxiliary passenger queuing / ticketing area

Multimodal access in project area

Proximity of relocated bus stations

Metro Bus Operations

Car 2 Go access

Transit gateway / information / wayfinding


• Fewer multimodal conflicts in near boarding areas & widest possible boarding platform


16

Technical Evaluation –Traffic and Accessibility



Concept 2 (Restricted Auto access on 4th)

Pedestrian circulation Appropriate access to and circulation through platform boarding area and plaza

Bicycle circulation Appropriate access to and circulation through platform boarding area and plaza

Auto circulationMaintains access to Hilton & Convention Center

Austin Energy and Waller Creek (Public Works) access

4th St capacity Maintains auto capacity from Red River to Trinity


• Better pedestrian & bicycle level-of-service in the plaza area with fewest conflicts and best accessibility

However, stakeholders have expressed additional access concerns


17

Technical Evaluation –Context Sensitive Compatibility



Concept 2 (Restricted Auto access on 4th)

Stakeholder needs

Minimize Convention Center and Hilton Hotel emergency egress conflicts

Maintains definition of Lance Armstrong Bikeway

Supports future development

Convention Center expansion

Future development parcel access needs (Perry Lorenz)

Sabine St Promenade

Great Streets compatibilityDedicated spaces for pedestrian, transit, bicycle and auto uses

Walkability, wayfinding, and ease of use


• More consistent with a multimodal vision for bringing all modes together in one place harmoniously


18

Technical Evaluation –Overall

Evaluation Metric Concept 1 (Vacate Auto Access on 4th)


Safety Best reduction of conflicts Auto and bikeway conflicts remain

Transit Operations Meets requirementsMay compromise platform width to fit

shared-use lane and emergency access

Traffic and Accessibility Reduces auto accessibilityMaintains accessibility; requires bikes &

autos to share

Context Sensitive Compatibility Consistent with multimodal vision & hierarchy

Diminishes multimodal vision

• Concept 1 is the best solution for reducing safety conflicts, meeting transit operational requirements, improving multimodal accessibility, and is consistent with the urban context



Technical Evaluation –Overall

• Concept 1 is the best solution for reducing safety conflicts, meeting transit operational requirements, improving multimodal accessibility, and is consistent with the urban context

19

4th Street Traffic Evaluation

20


Traffic Data Collection

• Video camera set up at the corner of 4th Street and Neches

• 7-day, 24-hour counts (Thursday 9/3 to 9/10)

• Data for auto, pedestrian, and bike

• Historical counts on Cesar Chavez, 5th, and 6th Streets

4TH STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 21

Evaluation Findings – Part 1

• Heavy pedestrian & bicycle volumes– Combined more than auto traffic– Pedestrian counts only include the intersection of 4th and Neches – E-W pedestrian movements along Convention Center sidewalk not included – Doesn’t take into account the people passing through on MetroRail

• Restricted vehicular access on 4th Street will provide a better environment for the many pedestrians already using this area

4TH STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Auto, Pedestrian & Bicycle Peak Hourly Volumes on 4th Street

Auto & PedestrianDaily Volumes on 4th Street

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

4th St, E of Neches (WB Auto) 4th St @ Neches (Pedestrian) Cesar Chavez, W of S 1st St (WB Auto)

6th St, W of IH 35 (WB Auto) 4th St @ Neches (Bicycles)

Data Summary – Hourly Volumes onTypical Weekday*


Vehi

cles

/ Pe

dest

rians

per

Hou

rB

icycles per Hour

Time of Day

Auto Capacity of 4th

* - Cesar Chavez and 6th St traffic volumes from City of Austin historical data

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

4th St, E of Neches (WB Auto) 4th St @ Neches (Pedestrian) Cesar Chavez, W of S 1st St (WB Auto)

6th St, W of IH 35 (WB Auto) 4th St @ Neches (Bicycles)



Vehi

cles

/ Pe

dest

rians

per

Hou

rB

icycles per Hour

Time of Day



24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

4th St, E of Neches (WB Auto) 4th St @ Neches (Pedestrian) Cesar Chavez, W of S 1st St (WB Auto)6th St, @ Red River (WB Auto) 4th St @ Neches (Bicycles)

Time of Day

Data Summary – Hourly Volumes on Typical Weekend* (Saturday)



Vehi

cles

/ Pe

dest

rians

per

Hou

rB

icycles per Hour


25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

4th St, E of Neches (WB Auto) 4th St @ Neches (Pedestrian) Cesar Chavez, W of S 1st St (WB Auto)6th St, @ Red River (WB Auto) 4th St @ Neches (Bicycles)

Time of Day

Data Summary – Hourly Volumes on Typical Weekend* (Saturday)



Vehi

cles

/ Pe

dest

rians

per

Hou

rB

icycles per Hour


6th Street entertainment period lane closure

26

Evaluation Findings – Part 3Impact on Alternate Routes

• Traffic time distribution on 4th Street is very different from the rest of the downtown network

• 4th Street is not a major commuter route

• Weekday peak period volumes:

• Late night volumes (entertainment period):

* Based on CAMPO’s roadway capacity look-up table

** COA Traffic Data Report


Street Control Lanes (WB) WB Lane Capacity

WB Total Capacity

AM Peak:8-9a V/C PM Peak:

5-6p V/C

6th Street signal 4 900* 3600 458** 0.1 315** 0.1

4th Street stop sign 1 400* 400 193 0.5 120 0.3

Cesar Chavez signal 2 900* 1800 990** 0.6 1233** 0.7

Street Control Lanes (WB) WB Lane Capacity

WB Total Capacity

Entertainment Peak: 11p-12a V/C

6th Street signal 4 900* 3600 - -

4th Street stop sign 1 400* 400 356 0.9

Cesar Chavez signal 2 900* 1800 649** 0.4

27



28

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

4th St, E of Neches (WB Auto) Wed '15 Cesar Chavez, W of S 1st St (WB Auto) Wed '136th St, W of IH 35 (WB Auto) Mon '11 5th St, W of IH 35 (EB Auto) Thur '095th St, E of Red River (EB Auto) Tue '09



Vehi

cles

per

Hou

r

Time of Day

2-lane, CBD Principal Arterial capacity

1-lane, CBD Local Street capacity

* - Cesar Chavez, 5th St. and 6th St. traffic volumes from City of Austin historical data

29

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

4th St, E of Neches (WB Auto) Wed '15 Cesar Chavez, W of S 1st St (WB Auto) Wed '136th St, W of IH 35 (WB Auto) Mon '11 5th St, W of IH 35 (EB Auto) Thur '095th St, E of Red River (EB Auto) Tue '09



Vehi

cles

per

Hou

r

Time of Day




30

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

4th St, E of Neches (WB Auto) Sat '15 Cesar Chavez, W of S 1st St (WB Auto) Sat '136th St, @ Red River (WB Auto) Sat '09 5th St, E of San Jacinto (EB Auto) Sat '03

Data Summary – Hourly Volumes onTypical Weekend* (Saturday)


Vehi

cles

per

Hou

r

Time of Day




31

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

4th St, E of Neches (WB Auto) Sat '15 Cesar Chavez, W of S 1st St (WB Auto) Sat '136th St, @ Red River (WB Auto) Sat '09 5th St, E of San Jacinto (EB Auto) Sat '03

Data Summary – Hourly Volumes onTypical Weekend* (Saturday)


Vehi

cles

per

Hou

r

Time of Day



6th Street entertainment period lane closure


32

Proposed 5th Street 2-way Conversion

• Minimum Lane Configuration 2 EB auto lanes, 1 WB auto lane

• Limits of 2-way conversion (TBD):– Trinity to Red River Short Term Solutiono Resolves local circulation for Hilton Hotel and Convention Center

– Congress to IH-35 Long-Term Visiono Opportunity for multimodal repurposing of Downtown arterial; connection to

E Austin


34

5th Street 2-way ConversionLane Configuration Options

- Limits of 2-way conversion- Protected bicycle lanes


5th Street 2-Way ConversionTraffic and Accessibility

• Elimination of auto/ped. conflict points and reduction of bike conflicts

• Conversion of Trinity and 5th St. to two-way has additional accessibility benefits

• Concept 1

Nec

hes

St.

Red

Riv

er S

t.

Sabi

ne S

t.

Trin

ity S

t.

5th St.

4th St.


5th Street 2-Way Conversion Additional Considerations

• Dedicated LT lanes and signal phases– Center turning lane at intersections with high turning movements– Additional study needed

• “Repurposing” 5th Street to multimodal priority (pedestrian, bicycle, transit, auto)– Bike lane installation in place of parallel parking– Convert angled to parallel parking where possible – Reduction in parking encourages alternate modes– Existing garage/surface parking capacity at Brazos and Red River


Next Steps

37


38

Concept to Reality

NEXT STEPS

2015

• Complete Concept Confirmation

• Public and Stakeholder Vetting

2016• CMTA Board Adoption

2016

• City Council Adoption• Preliminary Design and

Environmental Approval

2016

• Final Design• Execution of

Agreements

2016-2017

• Construction Procurement

2017-2018

• Project Construction

38

capital metro downtown multimodal stationdowntownaustin.com/sites/default/files/cmta downtown...

Documents