CHAPTER 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The analysis of Capital Metro s services was prepared from electronic data provided by Capital Metro staff. hip data was gleaned from the August 2008 Automatic Passenger Counter (APC) counts and on-time performance data was obtained from the September 2008 trends report and is based on a 12 month average from October 2007 through September 2008. Several routes are not included in this analysis due to incomplete data set or are of a specialized nature such as school routes, service routes or limited schedules. These routes are: 151, 161, 214, 410, 411, 412, 430, 490, 499, 681 and 990. This chapter summarizes the analysis of existing operations (to September 2008) of Capital Metro s routes, provides demographic data of the Austin area and includes background information from other agencies involved with public transportation in the region that are of interest to Capital Metro. Among the subjects covered in this document: hip by system and individual route Service levels by system and individual route hip productivity analysis On-time performance analysis Greater Austin demographics Land use, housing growth and employment data Comprehensive plans and transportation study reviews Summary of Capital Metro customer comments Appendix containing profiles of the bus routes 1.1 As of January 2009, the Capital Metro transit system was comprised of 90 fixed routes serving the greater Austin metropolitan area. Service is operated under contract through one service partner CARTS and three different service providers, First Transit, Star Tran and Veolia. Nineteen routes are designed specifically to serve the University of Texas and six routes provide night owl service to several communities from downtown Austin. Service is provided seven days per week with service reductions during the weekends and at night. Night service generally operates to 10pm or 11pm with night owl routes operating Tuesday through Sunday from about midnight to about 3:30am. The following exhibits provide information on data available for 79 routes through August 2008 with ridership information presented separate categories for regular, commuter/express, night owls and university routes. Capital Metro Page 1-1
Exhibit 1.0 Regular Routes Summary Route Revenue Weekday Boardings Boardings per Hours Boardings per Trip Revenue Hour 1 291.8 14,912 84.2 51.1 2 37.1 951 12.0 25.6 3 147.1 4,761 48.6 32.4 4 48.4 1,707 21.6 35.3 5 91.5 2,280 29.2 24.9 6 37.4 1,034 16.2 27.6 7 130.5 7,725 59.4 59.2 9 44.8 865 19.7 19.3 10 137.4 5,047 53.1 36.7 17 80.3 3,399 22.4 42.3 18 29.0 695 11.1 24.0 19 41.6 710 16.1 17.1 20 94.4 4,641 49.9 49.2 21 34.0 835 27.8 24.6 22 32.6 765 29.4 23.5 23 13.4 243 7.1 18.1 29 16.4 193 6.0 11.8 30 33.0 760 14.0 23.0 37 68.8 2,619 30.5 38.1 201 12.2 310 7.0 25.4 202 3.0 36 2.0 12.0 240 23.4 493 12.6 21.1 243 21.3 420 8.3 19.7 300 115.4 6,356 55.7 55.1 311 42.1 1,360 18.8 32.3 320 72.4 2,062 34.4 28.5 325 43.1 2,304 31.1 53.5 328 40.2 863 14.8 21.5 331 61.8 3,066 31.6 49.6 333 76.8 2,023 28.1 26.3 338 56.1 1,504 21.7 26.8 339 51.6 1,367 27.4 26.5 350 91.0 2,829 38.2 31.1 383 52.2 1,325 24.0 25.4 392 38.3 661 13.2 17.3 450 63.4 820 2.9 12.9 451 33.2 762 2.6 23.0 Totals 2,307.0 82,703 Source: Capital Metro route profile summary report Capital Metro Page 1-2
Exhibit 1.1 Commuter/Express Routes Summary Revenue Weekday Boardings Boardings per Route Hours Boardings per Trip Revenue Hour 100 28.9 391 6.9 13.5 101 75 2,228 28.2 29.7 103 5.2 147 21.0 28.3 110 4.5 118 14.7 26.2 122 3.1 17 5.6 5.5 127 1.8 39 19.5 21.7 135 8.8 25 1.8 2.8 137 7.6 280 28.0 36.8 142 10.1 260 26.0 25.7 171 13.1 244 14.3 18.6 174 27.1 322 8.7 11.9 935 15.5 589 28.0 38.0 970 1 14 7.0 14.0 982 31.1 1,021 24.3 32.8 983 41.4 849 25.7 0.5 984 5.6 151 25.2 4.8 986 5.3 109 21.8 20.6 987 19.8 439 29.2 22.2 Totals 304.9 7,243 Source: Capital Metro route profile summary reports Exhibit 1.2 Night Owl Routes Summary Revenue Weekday Boardings Boardings per Route Hours Boardings per Trip Revenue Hour 481 5.6 122 9.4 21.8 482 1.3 21 3.5 16.2 483 1.8 52 6.5 28.9 484 2.3 45 7.5 19.6 485 3.3 30 4.3 9.1 486 2.8 53 7.5 18.9 Totals 17.1 323 Source: Capital Metro route profile summary reports Capital Metro Page 1-3
Exhibit 1.3 University Routes Summary Revenue Weekday Boardings Boardings per Route Hours Boardings per Trip Revenue Hour 640 FA 51.6 8,027 50.2 155.6 641 EC 30.6 1,605 7.4 52.5 642 WC 58.5 5,509 34.8 94.2 651 CR 51.4 1,166 5.7 22.7 652 PRC 22 326 6.4 14.8 653 RR 61.1 2,915 9.1 47.7 656 IF 74.7 4,441 13.9 59.5 661 FW 110.2 4,073 13.0 37.0 662 ER 49.3 1,000 5.3 20.3 663 LA 54.4 1,643 10.3 30.2 670 CP 81.2 3,458 12.8 42.6 671 NR 77.7 3,246 12.2 41.8 672 LS 40.8 1,084 7.4 26.6 675 WL 71.6 1,679 7.7 23.4 680 LS/NR 5.4 316 15.8 58.5 683 ER/LA 5.7 200 18.8 35.1 684 CR/RR 5.7 193 18.2 33.9 685 WL/CP 11.0 363 10.4 33.0 Totals 862.9 41,244 Source: Capital Metro route profile summary reports 1.1.1 Revenue Hours Capital Metro operates approximately 3,492 revenue hours each weekday for the 79 routes that were analyzed. Routes 1, 3, 7, 10, 300 and 661 FW provide the highest level of service in terms of service hours exceeding 100 hours per weekday while Routes 110, 122, 127, 202, 970 and night owls (except 481) provide less than five hours per weekday. The relative amounts of weekday service hours provided on each route are shown in Exhibits 1.4 through 1.7. Data is obtained from the Capital Metro route profile summary reports. Capital Metro Page 1-4
Exhibit 1.4 Regular Routes Weekday Revenue Hours Capital Metro Page 1-5
Exhibit 1.5 Commuter/Express Routes Weekday Revenue Hours Capital Metro Page 1-6
Exhibit 1.6 Night Owl Routes Weekday Revenue Hours Exhibit 1.7 University Routes Weekday Revenue Hours Capital Metro Page 1-7
1.1.2 hip Weekday ridership on the 79 analyzed routes discussed here was about 130,560. Daily per route boardings ranges from over 14,000 on Route 1 to less than 100 on one regular route, six commuter/express routes, one university route and five out of six night owl routes. The distribution of ridership by route is displayed in Exhibits 1.8 through 1.11. Capital Metro Page 1-8
Exhibit 1.8 Regular Routes Weekday hip Capital Metro Page 1-9
Exhibit 1.9 Commuter/Express Routes Weekday Boardings 2,500 Weekday Boardings by Commuter/Express Routes Weekday Boardings 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 100 101 103 110 122 127 135 137 142 171 174 935 970 982 983 984 986 987 Routes Capitol Metro Page 1-10
Exhibit 1.10 Night Owl Routes Weekday hip Exhibit 1.11 University Routes Weekday hip Capitol Metro Page 1-11
1.1.3 Productivity and Effectiveness The weekday average boardings per revenue hour by route category were: 35.8 for regular routes, 18.9 for night owl routes and 47.8 for university routes. Productivity for the commuter/express routes category is measured in terms of passengers per trip with an average of 18.7 per trip. Weekday system productivity for each category is summarized in Exhibits 1.12 through 1.19 followed by Exhibits 1.20 through1.23 summarizing productivity by route category for Saturday and Sunday. Exhibit 1.12 Weekday Regular Route Productivity in Rank Order Route Boardings per Revenue Hour Rank 7 59.2 1 300 55.1 2 325 53.5 3 1 51.1 4 331 49.6 5 20 49.2 6 17 42.3 7 37 38.1 8 10 36.7 9 4 35.3 10 3 32.4 11 311 32.3 12 350 31.1 13 320 28.5 14 6 27.6 15 338 26.8 16 339 26.5 17 333 26.3 18 2 25.6 19 201 25.4 20 383 25.4 21 5 24.9 22 21 24.6 23 18 24.0 24 22 23.5 25 30 23.0 26 451 23.0 27 328 21.5 28 240 21.1 29 243 19.7 30 9 19.3 31 23 18.1 32 392 17.3 33 19 17.1 34 450 12.9 35 202 12.0 36 29 11.8 37 Capitol Metro Page 1-12
Exhibit 1.13 Commuter/Express Route Productivity in Rank Order Route Boardings per Trip Rank 987 29.2 1 101 28.2 2 137 28.0 3 935 28.0 4 142 26.0 5 983 25.7 6 984 25.2 7 982 24.3 8 986 21.8 9 103 21.0 10 127 19.5 11 110 14.7 12 171 14.3 13 174 8.7 14 970 7.0 15 100 6.9 16 122 5.6 17 135 1.8 18 Exhibit 1.14 Night Owl Route Productivity in Rank Order Route Boardings per Revenue Hour Rank 483 28.9 1 481 21.8 2 484 19.6 3 486 18.9 4 482 16.2 5 485 9.1 6 Capitol Metro Page 1-13
Exhibit 1.15 University Route Productivity in Rank Order Route Boardings per Revenue Hour Rank 640 FA 155.6 1 642 WC 94.2 2 656 IF 59.5 3 680 LS/NR 58.5 4 641 EC 52.5 5 653 RR 47.7 6 670 CP 42.6 7 671 NR 41.8 8 661 FW 37.0 9 683 CE/LA 35.1 10 684 CR/RR 33.9 11 685 WL/CP 33.0 12 663 LA 30.2 13 672 LS 26.6 14 675 WL 23.4 15 651 CR 22.7 16 662 ER 20.3 17 652 PRC 14.8 18 Capitol Metro Page 1-14
Exhibit 1.16 Regular Routes Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Capital Metro Page 1-15
Exhibit 1.17 Commuter/Express Routes Weekday Boardings per Trip Capital Metro Page 1-16
Exhibit 1.18 Night Owl Routes Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Exhibit 1.19 University Routes Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour 1.1.4 Saturday and Sunday Route Productivity Weekends, Routes 1, 7, 300, 325 and 331 are the top five regular routes in productivity based on boardings per revenue hour. These are the same routes that fall in the top five in productivity for weekday regular routes. Two of the three 400 series University of Texas routes (the E-Bus) experienced much higher productivity while the third performed better than fifth ranking regular route. Capital Metro Page 1-17
Exhibit 1.20 Saturday Regular Route Productivity in Rank Order Route Boardings per Revenue Hour Rank 300 51.7 1 1 50.5 2 325 47.8 3 331 47.3 4 7 42.0 5 20 41.5 6 17 39.4 7 2 36.1 8 10 34.7 9 37 31.6 10 4 30.8 11 6 30.1 12 339 29.5 13 451 29.5 14 320 28.0 15 3 27.5 16 333 27.5 17 383 26.7 18 338 25.5 19 311 25.3 20 350 25.2 21 5 23.2 22 30 21.9 23 328 20.6 24 201 16.5 25 18 16.3 26 21 15.8 27 22 14.0 28 243 13.7 29 392 13.4 30 19 12.7 31 23 12.1 32 100 11.9 33 450 11.4 34 9 9.4 35 Capital Metro Page 1-18
Exhibit 1.21 Saturday University Route Productivity in Rank Order Route Boardings per Revenue Hour Rank 410 73.8 1 412 70.2 2 411 46.0 3 Exhibit 1.22 Saturday Night Owl Route Productivity in Rank Order Route Boardings per Revenue Hour Rank 483 33.1 1 484 24.9 2 481 21.3 3 482 19.0 4 486 18.4 5 485 9.5 6 Exhibit 1.23 Sunday Regular Route Productivity in Rank Order Route Boardings per Revenue Hour Rank 1 52.0 1 325 46.8 2 300 45.8 3 7 42.9 4 331 39.7 5 17 34.5 6 320 34.5 7 4 29.9 8 10 29.7 9 20 28.8 10 37 28.7 11 2 28.5 12 3 26.3 13 383 25.6 14 350 24.2 15 333 23.0 16 451 22.8 17 6 21.0 18 5 19.9 19 338 18.7 20 311 18.1 21 201 17.4 22 Table continues on next page. Capital Metro Page 1-19
30 16.9 23 328 16.5 24 22 13.6 25 18 13.5 26 243 11.7 27 392 11.1 28 100 10.9 29 21 9.2 30 450 9.0 31 23 8.4 32 1.1.5 On-Time Performance On-time performance data was collected by the Capital Metro APC system during the Fall 2008 service time period for 79 routes. The top five performing routes were Routes 2, 21, 338, 392 and 482. The bottom five routes were Routes 135, 970, 984, 986 and 987. The overall system-wide performance for the 79 routes was 52.0% on-time, 37.0% early and 11.0% late. This information indicates a significant percentage of routes operating early vs. operating late contributing to the very low percentage of routes operating on-time. It should be noted that this analysis does not discount early arrivals at the final timepoint, and thus somewhat overstates the on-time issue. Field checks verified this data, and confirmed consistent early running times. Exhibits 1.24 and 1.25 provide the on-time performance (on-time, early and late) for each route ranked in order of performance. Capital Metro Page 1-20
Exhibit 1.24 On-Time Performance in Rank Order Route On-Time Early Late Rank 2 84.9% 6.2% 9.0% 1 482 80.8% 19.2% 0.0% 2 21 74.5% 14.5% 11.0% 3 392 71.7% 20.1% 8.2% 4 338 71.2% 16.2% 12.6% 5 29 68.5% 10.1% 21.4% 6 311 66.7% 22.8% 10.5% 7 4 66.6% 15.0% 18.5% 8 6 66.0% 20.9% 13.1% 9 9 65.5% 24.2% 10.3% 10 18 64.5% 29.7% 5.8% 11 240 63.9% 30.5% 5.6% 12 651 CR 63.7% 31.7% 4.6% 13 656 IF 63.2% 32.8% 4.0% 14 451 62.9% 27.6% 9.6% 15 684 CC RR 62.8% 32.1% 5.2% 16 652 PRC 62.2% 19.3% 18.5% 17 383 62.0% 28.1% 9.9% 18 19 61.6% 13.5% 24.9% 19 683 ER LA 61.3% 24.5% 14.2% 20 100 60.4% 12.7% 26.9% 21 331 60.3% 26.9% 12.8% 22 325 59.8% 32.1% 8.1% 23 22 58.8% 29.9% 11.3% 24 30 58.5% 34.2% 7.3% 25 23 57.6% 26.4% 16.0% 26 5 57.2% 34.8% 8.0% 27 333 56.3% 37.6% 6.1% 28 640 FA 56.1% 38.6% 5.3% 29 481 56.0% 22.7% 21.3% 30 7 56.0% 33.3% 10.7% 31 328 55.8% 37.9% 6.3% 32 320 55.6% 34.3% 10.1% 33 339 55.6% 21.2% 23.3% 34 202 54.8% 43.8% 1.4% 35 201 54.8% 43.8% 1.4% 36 101 53.0% 45.5% 0.0% 37 3 53.0% 33.0% 14.1% 38 17 52.6% 36.4% 11.0% 39 Table continues on next page. Capital Metro Page 1-21
350 51.9% 38.7% 9.4% 40 485 51.7% 12.0% 36.3% 41 110 51.5% 26.1% 22.4% 42 642 WC 51.4% 39.8% 8.8% 43 300 51.2% 39.2% 9.6% 44 661 FW 50.8% 39.6% 9.6% 45 653 RR 50.3% 43.9% 5.7% 46 174 50.2% 32.2% 17.6% 47 680 LS NR 50.0% 38.1% 11.9% 48 663 LA 49.8% 45.5% 4.7% 49 685 WL CP 49.6% 43.3% 7.1% 50 1 49.4% 32.1% 18.5% 51 483 49.1% 50.9% 0.0% 52 243 48.7% 49.2% 2.1% 53 37 47.9% 41.3% 10.8% 54 127 47.8% 38.8% 13.5% 55 142 46.2% 37.8% 16.0% 56 20 46.2% 46.5% 7.3% 57 137 45.8% 28.3% 25.9% 58 122 44.5% 38.8% 16.7% 59 670 CP 44.3% 53.7% 2.0% 60 10 43.5% 45.9% 10.6% 61 484 43.5% 55.2% 1.3% 62 486 43.3% 45.8% 10.9% 63 671 NR 41.6% 50.9% 7.4% 64 982 39.3% 49.7% 11.0% 65 983 38.1% 54.2% 7.7% 66 672 LS 37.0% 58.0% 5.0% 67 103 35.8% 15.8% 48.4% 68 662 ER 35.6% 57.3% 7.1% 69 675 WL 35.3% 58.7% 6.0% 70 935 34.7% 46.9% 18.4% 71 171 34.0% 49.8% 16.2% 72 450 32.9% 54.8% 12.3% 73 641 EC 31.0% 65.1% 3.9% 74 986 30.1% 60.7% 9.2% 75 984 27.6% 68.7% 3.7% 76 987 22.5% 68.6% 8.9% 77 135 18.4% 70.2% 11.4% 78 970 3.3% 96.7% 0.0% 79 Average 51.5% 37.4% 11.1% Capital Metro Page 1-22
Exhibit 1.25 On-Time Performance by Route 90.0% On-Time Percentage by Route O n - T i m e P e r c e n t a g e 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Route Capital Metro Page 1-23
1.2 Assessing Background Conditions This section summarizes current transit service needs, future demand and challenges based on a review of the origin and destination study, demographics information, goals and policies of comprehensive plans and customer comments. Origin and Destination Study Summarized here are significant findings from the Origin and Destination Study report produced by Creative Consumer Research in February of 2006. Demographic Information The demographics data provided here is derived from Census 2000 and includes an analysis of the area s population age, income level, disability, the number of families with children and residents with no vehicle. Comprehensive Plan Review We reviewed the comprehensive plans and related reports from the county, cities and communities to understand land use and projected growth. Customer Comments A review of the customer comment log was conducted to determine any trends regarding customer requests for service or reports of significant service issues to resolve. 1.2.1 Origin and Destination Study During selected weeks in October, November and December 2005, Creative Consumer Research conducted intercept interviews with riders on the Capital Metro bus system in order to determine riders origins, destinations, and other demographic information. A sampling plan was developed based on 90% confidence level with a 5% margin of error for each major route in the system. For the survey, Capital Metro defined a major route that in sum comprise 90% of weekday, Saturday, and Sunday ridership with the remaining routes grouped for statistical analysis in achieving a good sample size. A minimum of 19,000 surveys were required as well as that the number of surveys on each route be proportionate to the ridership for the days on which the route operated and proportionate to the ridership for the time periods when the route operated. The Origin and Destination Study report of February 2006 indicates that the majority of rider s origin and destination is their home. are traveling to many different locations but predominately their riding activity is to and from work, college/university or for personal or recreational activities. Up to 80% of riders walk to reach the bus and their final destination while 12% transfer to reach the bus stop and 18% transfer to travel to their final destination. Only 3% drive to the bus stop by car and 2% use a bike. The average number of miles driven by car was 7.2 miles vs. 1.9 miles by bicycle. Most of Capital Metro s customers, 66%, ride the bus at least five days a week correlating to the fact that 47% of the system s customers do not have a car available and 71% of customers are unable to use a household vehicle. The largest age group of riders is ages 19 to 25 at 32% followed by the 26 to 39 age group at 28%. Seniors comprise only 2% of the ridership while the youth group is only 7%. Regarding income, 48% of Capital Metro customers indicated their annual income of less than $30,000 and those with household incomes of $60,000 or more was only 5% of the ridership. Capital Metro Page 1-24
When comparing the UT shuttle ridership with riders using only regular routes, UT riders tend to mainly travel by bus between home and school whereas regular route riders travel to many destinations. A much higher percentage of UT riders have a household vehicle available for use although UT rider s household income is lower. Seventy two percent of UT riders are ages 19 to 25 with 46% of ridership using the UT service five days per week. 1.1.2 Greater Austin Demographics This section provides information regarding various demographic subjects as obtained from Census 2000, Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan and the Austin Chamber of Commerce covering the Greater Austin area. The demographic data provides a view of potential transit markets for Capital Metro. Population Growth Over the last fifty years Austin s population grew by 35% to 41% every decade and doubled every twenty to twenty-five years. Over the last three decades Austin s population increased by nearly 400,000 people. By the end of this decade it is estimated that the population growth will be between 115,000 and 140,000. The 1990s saw a 48% increase in the population with growth averaging 3.4% annually since the 2000 Census. Only four other metro areas experienced a greater growth of total net migration than Austin and estimates project that Austin will continue to be a top destination for migrating talent. The rate of population growth for the Austin metropolitan area has paralleled and outpaced that of the city. This is primarily due to the rapid suburban growth in Williamson Country and unincorporated areas of Travis County and, to a lesser extent, suburban and exurban growth in Hays and Bastrop Counties. The population of Austin and the surrounding area is expected to continue to grow. By 2035 there may be as many as 1.2 million people living in the city. By 2020 the population of the Austin metropolitan area is expected to increase to 2.3 million and by mid decade to 2.5 million people. The projected population for the metropolitan area is expected to reach three million people by the early 2030s. Exhibit 1.26 Austin Metropolitan Service Area Population Growth 1980 1990 2000 2008 Percent Change 2000-2008 Austin MSA Total 585,051 846,227 1,249,763 1,652,602 32.2% Bastrop County 24,726 38,263 57,733 73,491 27.3% Caldwell County 23,637 26,392 32,194 36,899 14.6% Hays County 40,594 65,614 97,589 149,476 53.2% Travis County 419,573 576,407 812,280 998,543 22.9% Williamson 76,521 139,551 249,967 394,193 57.7% County Source: Austin Chamber of Commerce/US Bureau of the Census Capital Metro Page 1-25
Exhibit 1.27 Austin Metropolitan Service Area Population Projections 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Austin MSA Total 1,249,763 1,712,647 2,292,737 3,030,478 3,958,933 Bastrop County 57,733 81,717 112,096 149,340 192,599 Caldwell County 32,194 38,724 45,622 51,469 55,752 Hays County 97,589 164,078 250,886 355,508 469,394 Travis County 812,280 992,773 1,168,738 1,336,648 1,498,569 Williamson County Growth Rates Austin MSA 249,967 435,355 715,395 1,137,513 1,742,619 Source: Austin Chamber of Commerce/Texas State Data Center 2000-2010 2010-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040 37.0% 33.9% 32.2% 30.6% Population Density As seen in Exhibit 1.28 on the next page, the two areas of the city with the highest concentration of population (16,001 to 20,000 people per square mile) are located in the area surrounding the University of Texas Campus (Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, San Jacinto Blvd, 30 th Street and Lamar Blvd) and along Riverside Drive where numerous multi-family housing complexes are located. The density in other areas of the city outside of downtown are generally 4,001 to 8,000 people per square mile with the downtown area very lightly populated at 0 to 4,000 people per square mile. Suburban areas vary from 0-4,000 and 4,001 to 8,000 people per square mile. Capital Metro Page 1-26
Exhibit 1.28 Greater Austin Population Density Capital Metro Page 1-27
Population Age Nearly half of the region's population, 45%, is in the peak working years between the ages of 18-44. The highest concentrations of people age 65 and over are located in the neighborhoods east and north of downtown Austin. As shown in Exhibit 1.30, there are several pockets with the highest densities of 801 to 1,000 senior population per square mile which may indicate locations of adult and/or assisted living communities. Exhibit 1.29 Austin Metropolitan Service Area Population by Age and Gender for 2007 Age Group Male Female Total 0-17 212,175 201,046 413,221 18-24 94,514 89,253 183,767 25-44 282,893 246,820 529,713 45-64 176,982 175,597 352,579 65+ 51,347 67,534 118,881 Total 817,911 780,250 1,598,161 Source: Austin Chamber of Commerce/US Bureau of the Census Capital Metro Page 1-28
Exhibit 1.30 Greater Austin Population Density Age 65 and Over Capital Metro Page 1-29
Low Income Population There are very few areas in the Greater Austin area that have high concentrations of residents living at or below poverty level (8,000 to 12,000 people per square mile). The communities of population at or below the poverty level mimic the same two areas with the highest population density. Those two areas are the student housing area around the University of Texas Campus and the Riverside Drive area. There are several areas throughout the city with a moderate population density of 2,000 to 4,000 people per square mile living at or below poverty level. These areas are located just east of downtown between Rosewood Ave and E Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd; an area on the north side of Riverside Drive; a small area just northeast of the university campus, a community located within a triangle surrounded by IH-35, US 290 and US 183 to the northeast; a triangle between US 183 and Lamar Blvd; and a small community along Mopac between Spicewood Springs Road and North Hills Drive. The balance of the Greater Austin area shows a population of 0-2,000 per square mile living at or below the poverty level. Capital Metro Page 1-30
Exhibit 1.31 Greater Austin Population Density Below Poverty Level Capital Metro Page 1-31
Disabled Population Persons with disabilities constitute an important market for public transportation services. For Capital Metro, the populations of people with disabilities are located throughout the city in nearly every neighborhood. There are pockets of high concentrations of total disabilities (2,701 to 3,600 or 3,601 to 4,500 per square mile) such as the Riverside Drive area; east of IH 35 between the river and about Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd; the IH 35 US 290 US 183 triangle; Rundberg Lane and US 183 area; neighborhoods in the south central area surrounding Ben White Blvd; and along South 1 st Street north of Lamar Lane. Those with ADA-eligible disabilities are generally served by ADA paratransit services. Exhibit 1.32 provides information on the distribution of the physically disabled population based on total disabilities for Greater Austin. Capital Metro Page 1-32
Exhibit 1.32 Greater Austin Density of Disabilities Capital Metro Page 1-33
Families with Children The density distributions of families with children for Greater Austin, according to Census 2000, are mostly 1,001 to 2,000 per square mile and generally are located in nearly every community surrounding downtown Austin as well as a few suburban communities. The areas with higher concentrations (2,001 to 3,000 per square mile) are further north and located along US 290, IH 35 and US 183 and south central Austin. The highest concentrations are at the US 183 and Lamar triangle and the south side of Riverside Drive. Capital Metro Page 1-34
Exhibit 1.33 Greater Austin Population Density Families with Children under Age 18 Capital Metro Page 1-35
Residents with No Vehicle Residents that do not own an automobile, tend to rely on public transit. For these residents, public transit represents one of the few transportation options for mobility. The areas with the highest rates of residents with no vehicle (1,201 to 1,500 per square mile) are mostly located in the areas surrounding the university campus and the areas located along Riverside Drive similar to the highest areas with low income and highest population density. Another area with a high concentration of residents with no vehicle (601 to 900 per square mile) is located east of downtown between Rosewood Ave and E Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd which is also a low income area. Most communities, in and around the city, fall in the range of 0-300 or 301 to 600 housing units per square mile that do not have a vehicle. Capital Metro Page 1-36
Exhibit 1.34 Greater Austin Population Density Housing Units without Vehicles Capital Metro Page 1-37
1.2.3 Land Use City of Austin Neighborhood Planning Neighborhood planning is an opportunity for citizens to take a proactive role in the planning process and decide how their neighborhoods will move into the future. The process asks all members of the community to address the local issues and concerns that affect them, their families, and their neighbors. The City s neighborhood planning process serves to update Austin Tomorrow and also complements the broader concept of Smart Growth. The neighborhood plans are reviewed by the Planning Commission and then adopted by the City Council as a formal amendment to Austin Tomorrow. Special use options available through the neighborhood planning process allow a greater diversity of housing types than currently found in many urban core neighborhoods. Neighborhood plans also identify locations for mixed use, where the addition of housing to a commercial corridor or node contributes to urban vitality and reduces sprawl. Exhibit 1.35 City of Austin Neighborhood Planning Areas Source: Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan Capital Metro Page 1-38
Downtown Austin s Downtown is the largest employment center in Central Texas. It houses the State of Texas Capitol building, State of Texas offices, private sector offices, retail, and a growing residential population. Austin s Central Business District is a collection of larger and smaller places that come together to form Downtown. Over the last three decades, a number of policies, ordinances, and initiatives have been enacted to address a wide range of issues across Downtown. The Downtown Austin Design Guidelines (2000) provided recommendations for all downtown development and redevelopment projects by both the public and private sector and directed City staff to continue developing a plan to integrate the Guidelines into the City of Austin s overall project review process. The Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan designates downtown as a Priority One area for development. More information is provided under the Downtown Austin Plan found later in this document. Exhibit 1.36 Downtown Austin Growth Management Source: Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan Capital Metro Page 1-39
Changes in Land Area The area within Austin s corporate boundaries has continued to increase. Since 1960 the City has grown by 433%. Prior to changes to State of Texas law in the 1990s, the City of Austin underwent extensive expansion through annexation. However, the City has continued to grow and was expected to expand to over 300 square miles during 2008. By 2010, Austin is estimated to grow by slightly more than nine square miles. Exhibit 1.37 Austin s Land Area (square miles) 1970 to 2007 Year Land Area 10 Year Land Area 10 Year Land Area Change Percent Change in Square Miles 1970 81.4 46% 25.6 1980 128.9 58% 47.5 1990 226.3 76% 97.4 2000 265.1 17% 38.8 2007 297.6 12% 32.5 Source: Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 1.38 Greater Austin Future Land Use Capital Metro Page 1-40
Housing Growth Exhibit 1.39 provides data on the number of housing permits issued during 2007 providing insight on continued population growth for the Greater Austin area. Exhibit 1.39 Residential Permits, 2007 Total Single-family units Multi-family units Austin MSA Total 19,903 12,120 7,783 Bastrop County 206 54 152 Caldwell County 30 30 0 Hays County 1,975 1,527 448 Travis County 12,021 6,602 5,419 Williamson County 5,671 3,907 1,764 Source: Austin Chamber of Commerce/Bureau of the Census Employment Demographics The next two exhibits provide lists of the largest employers. This information reflects the diversity of the workforce and potential transit markets. Source: Austin Chamber of Commerce. Exhibit 1.40 Greater Austin Employers with over 6,000 Employees Company Austin School District City of Austin Dell Federal Government IBM Corp Seton Healthcare Network St. David s Healthcare Partnership State of Texas University of Texas at Austin Description Public Education Government Computer equipment mfg/sales headquarters Government Computer hardware & software R&D Health care headquarters Health care - headquarters Government Higher public education Exhibit 1.41 Greater Austin Employers with 2,000 to 5,999 Employees Company Advanced Micro Devices Apple Computer Applied Materials AT&T Austin Community College Flextronics (formerly Solectron) Freescale Semiconductor Leander School District National Instruments Round Rock School District Texas State University-San Marcos Travis County U.S. Internal Revenue Service Description Semiconductor chip engineering/marketing/admin Computer maker technical & admin. support center Semiconductor production equipment mfg. Telecommunications (Hdq. of TX operations) Higher education, public Electronics mfg. & integrated supply chain services Semiconductor chip design & mfg.- headquarters Public education Virtual instrumentation software & hardware mfg. & R&D - headquarters Public education Higher education Government Government (regional call & processing center) Capital Metro Page 1-41
1.2.4 Comprehensive Plan Reviews Research was conducted to review planning materials regarding public transportation of communities and government agencies in the Greater Austin area. The following is a summary of findings gleaned from various planning documents that are related to Capital Metro s public transportation service area. City of Austin Transportation In June 2008, the Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan was updated including the goals, policies and objectives for Transportation Systems in Chapter 2 of the document. The comprehensive plan contains a number of policies that are very transit supportive. It provides for a goal to develop a balanced, safe and efficient surface transportation system by establishing a transit circulation system within the core area and other major activity centers and integrating it with the city-wide transportation system, increase passenger amenities to encourage transit use for commuter trips. Another goal is to develop an intra-city transit system serving all parts of the metropolitan area with high intensity service connecting major activity centers with less intense feeder and line-haul service and joining residential areas with the high intensity services. Additionally, policies contained in the plan encourage the development of core area transit terminal facilities restricting street use or access ramp use to high occupancy vehicles. To support light rail transit, the plan calls for creating districts promoting transit-oriented with denser development near rail stations as well as encouraging implementation of multi-modal transportation system including transit-ways, roadways, bikeways and pedestrian-ways. This is balanced by policies to encourage employers to implement alternative work schedules, and provide incentives to promote carpooling, transit and other non-motorized means of transportation to attract the choice rider as well as reduce air pollution. Changes in Land Area Since 1960 the City has grown by 433%. In 2008, Austin was expected to expand to over 300 square miles. Although the changes in State law reduced the amount of land annexed, it created a more predictable process. By 2010, Austin is estimated to grow by slightly more than nine square miles. Population According to the comprehensive plan, Austin s population increased by nearly 400,000 people during the last three decades and by the end of this decade it is estimated that between 115,000 and 140,000 more people will have been added to the City since 2000. The rate of population growth for the Austin Metropolitan Area has paralleled and outpaced that of Austin. This is primarily due to the rapid suburban growth in Williamson Country and unincorporated areas of Travis County and, to a lesser extent, suburban and exurban growth in Hays and Bastrop Counties. The population of Austin and the surrounding area is expected to continue to grow for the foreseeable future. By 2035 it is projected that 1.2 million people will be living in the city. The projected population for the metropolitan area is expected to top three million people by the early 2030s. Austin is much less dense than many comparable US cities. Austin has a gross density lower than larger Texas cities such as San Antonio, Dallas and Houston. The comprehensive plan states that City policy attempts to redirect development into already developed areas of the City, such as downtown and along major arterial roadways. However, when compared to the growth in the outer urban area, inner-city development is a small percentage of the total development in the City. Capital Metro Page 1-42
Transit Orientated Development In response to future commuter rail service connecting the cities of Austin and Leander, the city is committed to focus growth around transit facilities through Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The City's mission with respect to TOD is to create transit-supportive communities by optimizing the use of land around high quality transit and help Austin achieve some of its social, environmental and economic goals: Support publicly funded transit investments and enhance transit ridership Create greater mobility choice through improved travel options (walking, bicycling, transit, etc.) Decrease auto use and lessen the negative impacts of the automobile: contribution to traffic congestion and air pollution, high household spending on transportation, consumption of fossil fuels, and excessive parking needs. Create interesting and active places to live, work and play Improve the design quality of the built environment Increase housing options suited to a mix of generations and incomes Achieve healthier lifestyles due to increased walking and bicycling Foster economic development, an enhanced tax base and the potential for revenue from publicsector real estate assets Increase the predictability and consistency of the development process Austin s TOD program is intended to make long-range coordinated transportation and land use decisions that will provide a variety of housing and mobility options and create places where people can live, work, shop, interact and recreate. The TOD Ordinance was adopted by the Austin City Council on May 19, 2005 to plan for development around future commuter rail stations. The plan consists of two phases. Phase I (now completed): Developed TOD districts around five future Urban Commuter Rail stations and one Bus Rapid Transit Park and Ride facility, Identified the TOD type for each station (to provide guidance for station area planning in phase 2), Identified Gateway, Midway, and Transition Zones, created a TOD base zoning district classification (for use when station area planning is complete), Identified interim development regulations relating to use, site development standards and parking for properties within a TOD district, (for phase 1, TOD district functions as an overlay district), and Established a station area planning process. Phase II, currently underway, is to conduct the station area planning processes for each TOD district. TOD Districts The TOD ordinance established districts around future urban commuter rail stations that provide for development that is compatible with and supportive of public transit and a pedestrian-oriented environment. Capital Metro Page 1-43
There are four types of TOD districts: Neighborhood center TOD - located at the commercial center of a neighborhood; lowest density of all classifications. Town center TOD - located at a major commercial, employment or civic center; moderate densities relative to other classifications. Regional center TOD - located at the juncture of regional transportation lines or at a major commuter or employment center; greater densities relative to other classifications but less than in a downtown TOD. Downtown TOD - located in a highly urbanized area; highest density of all classifications; allows for high-rise development. TOD District Profiles Convention Center (downtown TOD) - Station Area Planning will be handled through a separate consultant-led downtown planning process Highland Mall (town center TOD) Lamar Blvd/Justin Lane a.k.a. Crestview Station (neighborhood center TOD) Martin Luther King Blvd (neighborhood center TOD) Plaza Saltillo (neighborhood center TOD) North IH-35 Park and Ride a.k.a. Tech Ridge (town center TOD) Northwest Park and Ride a.k.a. Lakeline (town center TOD) Oak Hill (town center TOD) South IH-35 Park and Ride (town center TOD) Comprehensive Plan Update In September 2008, the Austin City Council appropriated funding for staff and a consultant to work with the public to create a new Comprehensive Plan for Austin. Three finalist consultant teams, chosen through a national Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process, presented their approaches at the city council meeting Thursday, Feb. 12, 2009. The city council is now asking for the public s input to find out what further information the community would like to know about the qualifications and experience of the RFQ finalists. The city council will use the suggestions to create a written list of questions that will be sent to the finalist teams, who will provide written responses for review on Marcy 27. After the consultants responses have been made available to the public, the council will hold another forum to gather public opinion on the consultants before making a final decision tentatively on April 23. Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan The Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (AMATP) is the long-range transportation plan for the City of Austin. It includes a roadway plan for the next 25 years. An update of the 2025 AMATP was adopted by the City Council on June 7, 2001. The AMATP is a long-range plan for transportation needs over the next 20 years. The AMATP is a multimodal approach (includes public transit, bike and pedestrian paths, roadways, etc.) to transportation planning designed to mitigate projected congestion of the transportation network and increase mobility options for users. Corridor Planning The City of Austin has a corridor planning initiative with the first project on East 7 th Street. The public outreach process started in 2004. The program is the effort to reestablish or enhance corridors as the physical and cultural pathways that link people to each other, to local institutions, and to daily Capital Metro Page 1-44
destinations while improving access for pedestrians, vehicles, transit, and bicycles. No additional information was available regarding status or future corridors. Downtown Austin Plan In December of 2005, the Austin City Council initiated the Downtown Austin Plan to develop a community vision for Downtown including planning for rail and bus transit routes and stations and integrating Downtown planning with the transit-oriented development planning area around the Convention Center. Phase One, creating the Framework, completed in early 2008, was followed by Phase Two, Implementation, including developing strategies and processes to proceed with the highpriority components of the plan indentified in Phase One. In November 2008, the Draft Transportation Framework Plan was issued with a component addressing public transportation integration with the project. Significant issues include a proposed initial phase 15.3-mile streetcar project to connect Downtown with significant Central City destinations (Capitol Complex, UT, Mueller, ABIA, Long Center); concentrating transit on specific streets to provide priority routes, more predictability and more convenient transfers between routes and modes. According to the report, West 3rd and West 4th streets, Congress Avenue, and San Jacinto Street would become rail streets and major north-south bus routes would be consolidated along Lavaca and Guadalupe streets, while major east-west routes would run along Seventh, Fifteenth and Martin Luther King Boulevard. The report also recommends that recently revised Dillo routes provide a circulator function, accommodating the short trips within and across the Downtown and when streetcar service begins, the Dillo could be adjusted to loop in a clockwise configuration to increase transit coverage in the Downtown core. It is recommended that efficient and convenient transfer connections between bus routes, Dillo and rail service be provided in Downtown. The report discusses the merits of a dedicated intermodal terminal vs. an on-street transfer station. Due to land and capital expenses as well as potential routing deviations that would be required with a dedicated facility, the report recommends utilizing the on-street transfer center approach. The report concluded with two key recommendations: 1) establish transit priority streets and 2) work with Capital Metro to develop an on-street bus transfer system that will also allow bus-to-rail transfers. CAMPO Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Williamson, Travis and Hays Counties in central Texas. The purpose of CAMPO is to coordinate regional transportation planning with counties, cities, Capital Metro, the Capital Area Rural Transportation System, TxDOT and other transportation providers in the region and to approve the use of federal transportation funds within the region. The two main products of CAMPO are the Long Range Transportation Plan (20+ years), the CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan (specifying a set of investments and strategies to maintain, manage, and improve surface transportation) and the short range program, the Transportation Improvement Program. Mobility 2030 Plan The CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan of June 2005 predicts a higher population forecast than in the previous plan; the need to make future transportation investments stretch further by improving the efficiency of the transportation system through transportation system management, travel demand management, and a more integrated approach to land use and transportation planning; and an increased reliance on innovative sources of funding, including vehicle tolling, to supplement the existing gas tax. Capital Metro Page 1-45
Major projects recommended by the plan include: An interregional passenger rail system connecting Austin and San Antonio; A regional transit system, including an urban commuter rail line connecting Leander to Downtown Austin, 10 new rapid bus lines, and 10 new or expanded express bus lines; 1,014 additional lane miles of freeways, parkways, or toll ways 4,358 additional lane miles of arterial roadway capacity; Approximately $237 million in stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian projects; Corridor studies to evaluate potential future projects in 12 critical corridors throughout the region Regional Growth Concept CAMPO is working with the public and regional partners to develop the 2035 Growth Concept plan to help coordinate future transportation and land use planning in the region. Forecasts indicate that in 2030 congestion in the region will be worse than it is today if current growth trends continue despite investing about $23 billion on roadway and transit improvements and operations. The 2035 Regional Growth Concept will help to preserve regional quality of life in the face of continued high growth rates. After the adoption of the CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan in June 2005, alternative future growth patterns are being analyzed for 2035 that would improve transportation and regional quality of life and integrate the information from the Envision Central Texas (ECT) scenario planning effort. The ECT preferred development pattern focuses future population growth in walkable activity centers within existing communities and distributes employment growth more evenly throughout the region. The 2035 Regional Growth Concept will look at ways to encourage development of future activity centers. The revised draft CAMPO Regional Growth Concept of May 2007 incorporates public input that was received. After the Transportation Policy Board endorses the draft concept, local jurisdictions, transportation service providers and others throughout the region will be invited to join CAMPO in implementing the growth concept plan. The document contains a summary of public transportation projects including projected costs and descriptions. 2030 Regional Population and Employment Forecast According to the CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan of June 2005, by the year 2030, the three county region is predicted to be home to approximately 2.75 million people, more than double the 2000 population. Employment in the region is also expected to more than double, bringing the number of jobs in the region to nearly 1.5 million by 2030. Exhibit 1.42 Population and Employment Forecast 2000 Census 2007 2017 2030 Percent Change from 2000 Population 1,160,000 1,463,000 2,027,000 2,750,000 +137% Employment 646,000 793,000 1,071,000 1,467,000 +127% Source: CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan, June 2005 2030 Population and Employment Forecast by Subarea While a larger number of people and jobs will be added to Travis County over the 30- year period, Travis County s overall share of regional jobs and population is expected to decline due to high growth rates in Williamson and Hays Counties. In 2030, 68% of the region s jobs are expected to be located in Travis County, while 55% of the region s population will live in the county. Over time, jobs and population will become more balanced throughout the region. However, in 2030 many residents of the region will still Capital Metro Page 1-46
have to commute long distances to get to work. Exhibit 1.43 shows the forecasted change in population and employment in each of the three counties between 2000 and 2030. In general, the greatest concentration of jobs will continue to be found in central Austin, along major transportation corridors in northern Travis County and southern Williamson County, and in San Marcos. The fastest growing parts of the region in terms of population are expected to be the area around Georgetown and Hutto and northern Hays County. Exhibit 1.43 Job/Population Forecast by County Source: CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan, June 2005 Capital Metro Page 1-47
Transportation Improvement Program Every four years, CAMPO is responsible for developing a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the area. The TIP includes: 1) A priority list of projects and project segments to be carried out within each 4-year period after the initial adoption of the transportation improvement program and 2) A financial plan that demonstrates how the transportation improvement program can be implemented, indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommends any innovative financing techniques to finance needed projects and programs, including value capture, tolls, and congestion pricing. The TIP for FY 2008-2011 was adopted by the CAMPO Board on February 12, 2007, and is currently in effect and incorporated into the Texas Department of Transportation's FY 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) which was approved October 2007. CARTS - Capital Area Rural Transportation System CARTS is a public transit agency serving the counties of Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee, and non-urbanized areas of Travis and Williamson with transportation tailored specifically for each of the one hundred and sixty-nine communities it serves. The agency operates scheduled service throughout the service areas and to destinations outside of the service area ranging from fixed route city service, commuter bus service to Austin, intercity service and paratransit community orientated service. Transportation Study In January 2007, CARTS issued a final report of the Williamson County Public Transportation Planning Study. CARTS, Williamson County, and participating municipal jurisdictions in Williamson and Travis Counties initiated a study of the feasibility of improving transit services. This study focuses on all of Williamson County except Round Rock and Leander, but includes the City of Pflugerville in Travis County. The City of Leander receives transit services, since it is a member of the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro). The City of Round Rock is independently studying transit alternatives for implementation. The primary goal of the final report was to develop a Five Year Plan that includes a comprehensive regional approach to the planning and development of public transit service and appropriate infrastructure in Williamson County and Pflugerville. The plan addresses service needs over the next five years. The major service recommendations, per the final report, contain an array of services based on the needs of the community including local city routes, regional/commuter routes, ADA paratransit service, vanpool, carpool services and new Pflugerville and Cedar Park service. According to Appendix A of the report, as part of the urbanized region surrounding Austin there is a wide range of planning activities that could affect CARTS and the study area. This study identified various planning activities in the region to determine how they fit together. The entities identified as performing important studies and planning activities having an impact on public transportation include Capital Metro, City of Round Rock, CAMPO and TxDOT. The studies in particular include Georgetown Transportation Study, Williamson County Transportation Plan (CARTS), Economic Development Efforts and Transit Multi-Modal Centers for Georgetown and Taylor. 2006 Regional Transportation Coordination Plan The Regional Transit Coordination Committee (RTCC), composed of transportation stakeholders in the Capital Area, developed the 2006 Regional Transportation Coordination Plan to provide a seamless transportation system and identify opportunities to enhance transportation services. The plan assigns Capital Metro Page 1-48