mobility 2040 and passenger rail plans for southern dallas ... · north central texas council of...
TRANSCRIPT
Mobility 2040 and
Passenger Rail Plans for
Southern Dallas County
October 27, 2016
Kevin Feldt, AICP
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Topics
2 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Adopted 2040 Mobility Plan
Regional Rail Plans
Traditional Transportation Cycle
3
Government Builds
Capacity
Land Owner Profits
Additional Traffic
Government Builds
Capacity
Land Owner Profits
Additional Traffic
Mobility 2040
4 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Regional Population Growth
5 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Po
pu
lati
on
in M
illio
ns
Long Range Transportation Plan
Required by Federal Law
6 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Represents a Blueprint for the Region’s Multimodal Transportation System
Covers at Least a 20-year Timeframe
Responds to Goals
Identifies Policies, Programs, and Projects for Continued Development
Guides the Expenditure of Federal and State Funds
Prioritization and Expenditures
7 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Max
imiz
e E
xist
ing
Syst
em
St
rate
gic
Infr
astr
uct
ure
In
vest
me
nt
$37.4
$7.2
$3.6
$27.2
$43.4 Freeways/Tollways and Arterials
Additional Vehicle Capacity
HOV/Managed Lanes Increase Auto Occupancy
Rail and Bus Induce Switch to Transit
Growth, Development, and Land Use Strategies
More Efficient Land Use & Transportation Balance
Management and Operations • Improve Efficiency & Remove Trips from System • Traffic Signals and Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements
Infrastructure Maintenance • Maintain & Operate Existing Facilities • Bridge Replacements
Mobility 2040 Expenditures $118.9*
*Actual dollars, in billions. Values may not sum due to independent rounding.
Funding Basics
8 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
System Revenue
Facility Revenue
Local Revenue
Regional Transportation
System
$118.9 B
•Motor Fuel Taxes •Vehicle Registration Fees •Other Federal Sources •Other State Sources
•Tollroads •Managed Lanes •Public/Private Partnerships
•Sales or Special Taxes •Bond Programs •Impact Fees •Property Taxes •Value Capture
Regional Performance Measures
9 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Regional Performance Measures 2017 2040 No-Build
Population 7,235,508 10,676,844 10,676,844
Employment 4,584,235 6,691,449 6,691,449
Vehicle Miles of Travel (Daily) 206,162,076 319,470,644 320,119,945
Hourly Capacity (Miles) 44,334,264 52,655,877 43,872,454
Vehicle Hours Spent in Delay (Daily) 1,521,068 3,587,038 6,198,230
Increase in Travel Time Due to Congestion 38.2% 58.4% 98.2%
Annual Cost of Congestion (Billions) $10.7 $25.3 $43.9
2017 Network
LOS ABC LOS DE LOS F
2040 Build
LOS ABC LOS DE LOS F
2040 No-Build
LOS ABC LOS DE LOS F
Lane Miles at Level of Service ABC, DE, and F
Regional Rail
10 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
11
Transit Modes
High Intensity Bus • Express Service
• Enhanced Amenities
• Destination Focused
• Defined Stations
• Signal Priority
Regional Rail • Long Distance Connections
• Shares Track with Freight
• Diesel Engines with Electric Motors
12 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Regional Rail
• New Technology for Region
• Similar to Light Rail
• On-board Power, No Overhead Wires • A-Train
• TEX Rail
13 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
DCTA Stadler GTW TEX Rail Stadler FLIRT
Potential Revenue Sources
• Special District Tax Ability
• Property Tax o City
o County
• Vehicle Registration Fee
• Value Capture
• Federal Transit Administration
• RTC Funds
• RTC Loans
• Sales Tax Extension
14 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Potential Revenue Sources
• TIFIA (or similar mechanism)
• Parking
• Advertising • In-vehicle
• Station
• Fiber Optic Lease
• Naming Rights
15 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Potential Fare Structure
• Fair Fare Structure
• Smart Card Technology Required
16 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Partnership Payment
Lower Fare
Average Fare
Higher Fare Partnership Payments
Student Low Income Peak User Non-Member
City User
Elderly Frequent
User Special
Destination Special
Functions
Unemployed Off-Peak Parking Space
Use Ozone Alert Response
Medical Longer
Distance
Waxahachie Corridor
17 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
• Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study November 2010
• Stakeholder Outreach
Potential Waxahachie Line Stations
18 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Dallas County Ellis County
Alternative 1
• Waxahachie to Union Station
• Transfer at Union Station Required
• No Stations at: • Simpson Stuart
• Cedar Valley College
• Downtown Red Oak
• South Red Oak
19 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Alternative 2
• Waxahachie to Union Station
• Transfer at Union Station Required
• All Stations Included
20 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Alternative 3
• Waxahachie to Southport (Blue Line LRT)
• Transfer at Southport Required
• No Stations at: • Cedar Valley College
• Downtown Red Oak
• South Red Oak
21 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Alternative 4
• Waxahachie to Southport (Blue Line LRT)
• Transfer at Southport Required
• All Stations Included
22 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Alternative 5
• Waxahachie to Union Station
• Continues as TRE Service
• All Stations Included
23 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Stakeholder Comments
• Resolve Conflicts with Freight
• Vehicle Technology Not Critical
• Service Implementation Is Critical
• Service to Employment Centers
• Funding Initiatives
• Glenn Heights Park-n-ride Usage
• Possibly Form Corridor Advocacy Group
• Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
24 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Passenger Rail Corridor Analysis
25 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Criteria Frisco
Alternative 1
McKinney
Alternative 3
Waxahachie
Alternative 1 Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank
Stations 10 2 8 3 12 1
Length 29.3 2 17.7 3 30.9 1
Major Employers 17 2 6 3 22 1
Activity Centers 32 3 49 2 117 1
Development Low 3 Medium 2 High 1
Connectivity High 1 Medium 2 Low 3
Daily Ridership 5,700 1 4,300 2 4,300 2
Capital Cost $474 2 $400 1 $533 3
Total Ranking 16 18 13
Possible Next Steps
• Innovative Finance Initiative (iFi)
• Cotton Belt Study Completed in 2011
• iFi Purposes • Expedite implementation through innovation
• Attract private sector investment
• Focus on innovative funding and financing options
• Enhance east-west mobility with a sustainable economic development pattern
26 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Waxahachie Corridor
Local Assistance Needed • Advocacy Group
• Schedule Meeting with NCTCOG Staff
• Seeking Commitment of Effort • Funding Commitment Later
• FYI: RTC Polling Results • More Transit
• Local Funding
• iFi?
27 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Points to Ponder
• Access Creates Value
• Break the Transportation Cycle
Those Who Benefit Should Contribute
• Spread the Wealth
• Stakeholder Support
• Be Innovative
• Be Bold
28 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Questions
29 Transit Development Forum – October 27, 2016
Kevin Feldt, AICP Program Manager [email protected]
(817) 704-2529