R-01-10-25-9F1 - 10/25/2001r
RESOLUTION NO. R- 01- 10- 25 -9F1
WHEREAS, the Capital Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning
Organization (CAMPO) has developed a 2025 Transporation Plan, which
contains transportation policy and projects for the next 25 years, and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to endorse the CAMPO 2025 Transporation
Plan, Now Therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK, TEXAS,
That the City Council hereby endorses the Capital Area
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization 2025 Transporation
Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein for all purposes.
The City Council hereby finds and declares that written notice of
the date, hour, place and subject of the meeting at which this
Resolution was adopted was posted and that such meeting was open to the
public as required by law at all times during which this Resolution and
the subject matter hereof were discussed, considered and formally acted
upon, all as required by the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas
Government Code, as amended.
RESOLVED this 25th day of Octo• 001.
K b fi /IA
RO A. STLUKA, JR., Mayor
57 . .
tuthilue.icu
CHRISTINE R. MARTINEZ, City Secr try
s OOMA\ WORLOOX\ Os \WOOX \RESOLUTI \R11025P1.WPU /sc
City of Round Rock, Texas
i
,. F
CAMPO 2025
Transportation Plan
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Plan to the Year 2025
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
prepared in cooperation with
The Texas Department of Transportation
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Williamson County
Travis County
Hays County
and the cities within the CAMPO region
"The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for
the opinions, findings, and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, the
Federal Transit Administration, or the Texas De artment of Transportation."
EXHIBIT
Adopted June 12, 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
Table of Contents
Page
1 Introduction & Background 1 -
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) 1 -1
History and Governing Body 1 -1
Study Area 1 -1
CAMPO Purpose and Responsibilities 1 -2
The Vision 1 -2
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 1 -3
Plan Preparation 1-4
Plan Implementation 1-4
Plan Intermodalism 1-4
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century 1 - 5
Planning Regulations 1 -5
Metropolitan Planning Factors 1 -5
Financially Constrained Plan 1 -7
Public Involvement Program 1 - 7
Public Opinion Survey 1 -7
Citizens' Transportation Guide to the Austin Metropolitan Area 1 -8
Open Houses /Surveys 1 -9
Transportation Protect Development Process 1 -10
2 Demographics & Surveys 2 -1
Austin Metropolitan Area Trends 2 -1
Population and Employment Forecasts 2 -1
Travel Survey Results 2 -2
Household/Person Data 2 -2
Trip Data 2-3
3 Environmental & Community Impacts 3 -1
Air Quality Program 3 -1
Transportation and Air Quality Conformity 3 -1
Research and Analysis 3 -2
Ozone Action Day Program 3 -3
Commute Solutions Program 3-3
Noise Impacts 3-6
Water Quality 3-7
Energy Conservation 3-8
Environmental Sensitivity 3-8
Environmental Justice - 3-9
Access to Jobs 3-10
Transportation and Land Use 3-10
4 Public Transportation System 4-1
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro) 4-1
Special Projects and Services 4-3
Privatization 4-3
Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) 4
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan iii June 12, 2000
4
Long -Term Public Transportation System 4-4
Capital Metro's Fixed Guideway System 4-4
Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail 4 -10
Transit- Oriented Development 4-10
5 Congestion Management System 5 -1
Transportation System Monitoring 5-1
Criteria Used for Determining Congestion 5-1
Congestion Network 5-1
CMS Corridor Mobility Plan 5-1
Mobility and Air Quality Objectives 5 -2
Corridor Mobility Plan Project and Program Development & Evaluation 5 -2
Congestion Management Teams 5-2
Commute Solutions Team 5 -2
Highway Bottleneck Team 5 -2
Freeway Traffic Management and Operations Team 5 -3
Downtown Mobility and Arterial Congestion Team 5 -3
HOV /HOT Facility Operations Team 5-3
6 Bicycle & Pedestrian System 6 -1
Introduction 6-1
Federal Requirements 6-1
Current Level of Bicycling and Walking 6-1
Increasing the Level of Bicycling and Walking 6-2
Bicycle System 6-2
FHWA Design Bicyclist 6 -2
2025 Metropolitan Bike Route System Map 6-4
Pedestrian System 6-4
7 Roadway System 7 -1
Roadway System Considerations 7 -1
Impacts to Neighborhoods 7 -1
Environmental Sensitivity 7 -2
Environmental Justice Sensitivity 7 -2
Financially Constrained Plan 7 -
Corridor Preservation 7 -2
Roadway Plan 7 -2
Travel Demand Modeling 7 -3
Development and Modeling of Alternative Roadway Networks 7-4
8 Freight Facilities 8-1
Introduction 8-1
TEA -21 Requirements 8-1
Roadway Freight 8-1
Commercial Vehicle Survey 8-2
External Travel Survey 8-3
Truck Traffic and the Effects of NAFTA 8-4
Rail Freight 8-4,
Air Freight 8-5
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan iv June 12, 2000
9 Financial Plan 9 -1
Introduction 9 -1
TEA -21 Requirements 9 -1
Current Planning Considerations of CAMPO Member Jurisdictions 9 -2
Policy Initiatives and Strategy 9 -3
General 9-3
Toll Roads 9-4
Structure of the Financial Plan 9 - 4
Use of Public/Private Partnerships 9 -5
Project Financing and Implementation 9 -5
Financial Strategy 9-6
10 Transportation Plan Policies 10 - 1
A. Plan Integration, Implementation, and Intermodalism . 10-1
B. Environmental & Community Impacts 10 -1
C. Public Transportation System 10
D. Congestion Management System 10-4
E. Bicycle & Pedestrian System 10-5
F. Roadway System 10-6
G. Freight Facilities 10 -8
H. Financial Plan 10 -9
11 Transportation Glossary & Acronym List 11 -1
12 References 12 -1
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan v June 12, 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
List of Figures
1 Introduction 1 -1
1.1 CAMPO Study Area Map 1 -2
2 Demographics and Surveys 2 -1
2.1 Comparison of Population Estimates and Forecasts 2 -2
2.2 Population & Employment Year 2025 Forecasts by Subareas 2-4
2.3 Population Distribution 2 -5
2.4 Employment Distribution 2 -6
3 Environmental Impacts of Transportation Decisions 3 - 1
3.1 1s` -4"' Highest Ozone Levels: 1997 -1999 in the Austin Area 3 -2
3.2 1996 Total NOx & VOC Emissions by Pollution Source 3-4
3.3 1996 Total NOx & VOC Contribution by County 3-5
3.4 On -Road Pollution Reduction Measures 3 -6
3.5 Criteria and Definitions for Determining Natural Environmental Sensitivity 3-8
3.6 Census Tracts with a Large Population (50% or more) of Minority
and/or Low Income Persons 3 -11
4 Public Transportation System 4 - 1
4.1 CMTA Service Area 4 -2
4.2 Capital Metro Ridership 4 -1
4.3 CARTS' Ridership and Operating Characteristics 4-4
4.4 Long -Term Transit Network 4 -5
4.5 Types of Transit Service 4 -6
4.6 2025 Public Transportation Plan - 4 -7
4.7 CMTA's Fixed Guideway System: Initial Phase 4 -9
4.8 Fried Guideway System Preliminary Phasing & Capital Costs:
Initial Phase 4 -11
4.9 Fixed Guideway System Preliminary Phasing & Capital Costs:
Subsequent Phases 4 -11
4.10 Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail System Summary 4 -12
4.11 Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail Construction Cost by Segment 4 -12
5 Congestion Management System 5 - 1
5.1 Long -Term HOV /HOT Network 5-4
6 Bicycle and Pedestrian System 6-1
6.1 2025 Metropolitan Bike Route System Map 6 -7
6.2 CAMPO -Area Travel to Work/School 6 -1
6.3 Actions to Increase Bicycling and Walking 6 -2
6.4 FHWA Design Bicyclist 6-3
6.5 Factors That Influence Walking 6 -5
7 Roadway System 7 - 1
7.1 2025 Roadway Plan Table 7 -5
7.2 2025 Roadway Plan Map 7 -25
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan vi June 12, 2000
7.3 Candidate Toll Road System Map 7 -26
8 Freight 8
8.1 Truck Traffic on IH 35: 1990 —1996 8 -2
8.2 Commercial Vehicle Trip Purposes 8 -3
8.3 Type of Activity at Truck Trip Destination 8-3
9 Financial Plan 9 - 1
9.1 Federal /State TxDOT Revenue History and Forecast for Construction
Funds in the CAMPO Metropolitan Area 9 -7
9.2 Candidate Toll Road Projects Revenues and Costs 9 -7
9.3 Capital Metro Revenue Forecast 9 -8
9.4 Fixed Guideway System Preliminary Phasing & Capital Costs: Initial Phase 9 -8
9.5 Fixed Guideway System Preliminary Phasing & Capital Costs:
Subsequent Phase 9 -9
9.6 Summary of CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan Capital Cost Estimates 9 -9
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan vii June 12, 2000
CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee
Gonzalo Barrientos, CAMPO Chair
Glen Maxey, Vice Chair
Jeff Wentworth
Terry Keel
Sherri Greenberg
Elliott Naishtat
Dawnna Dukes
Michael Krusee
Todd Baxter
Ron Davis
Karen Sonleitner
Greg Boatright
Bill Burnett
Kirk Watson
Gus Garcia
Bill Spelman
Willie Lewis
Robert Stluka
Doyle Bridgefarmer
John Trevino
Bill Garbade
CAMPO Staff
Michael R. Aulick
Nancy Ledbetter
Alison Schulze
Daniel Yang
Marfa Caminos - Davila
Roger Ramon
Charles Nichols
Elizabeth Longley Beckcom
Matthew Arbo
Michael Dutton
Kathleen Snow
Former Plan Staff
Lee Hoy
Rick Lakata
Brian Wolfe
Steven Prather
Chris Hoag
Doria Martinez
State Senator
State Representative
State Senator
State Representative
State Representative
State Representative
State Representative
State Representative
Travis County Commissioner
Travis County Commissioner
Travis County Commissioner
Williamson County Commissioner
Hays County Commissioner
Mayor, City of Austin
City of Austin Council Member
City of Austin Council Member
City of Austin Council Member
Mayor, City of Round Rock
Mayor, City of Pflugerville, Alliance of Cities
Capital Metro Board Member
TxDOT District Engineer
Executive Director
Planning Manager
Principal Planner
Transportation Officer
Senior Planner
Air Quality Specialist
Contract Compliance Specialist IV
Administrator
Planning /GIS Intern
Planning /GIS Intern
Administrative Assistant
Principal Planner
Senior Planner
Senior Planner — Commute Solutions
Planning Intern
GIS Intern
Planning Intern
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan viii June 12, 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
1 Introduction & Background
The CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan (CAMPO 2025 Plan) is a planning guide that
contains transportation policy and projects for the next 25 years (to 2025). The Plan
includes programs and policies for congestion management, transit, bicycles & pedestrians,
roadways, freight and finances. The CAMPO 2025 Plan must be revised at least every five
years, or every three years if our area is designated as non - attainment for federal air quality
standards.
The CAMPO 2025 Plan's primary use is as a regional long -range plan for federally funded
transportation projects, and it also serves as a comprehensive, coordinated transportation
plan for all the governmental jurisdictions within the CAMPO area. Different jurisdictions
have different transportation implementation responsibilities under the plan. These include
the Texas Department of Transportation, Capital Metro, and cities and counties.
The CAMPO 2025 Plan promotes a change from existing transportation conditions and
trends by encouraging alternatives to the single - occupant motor vehicle for travel, especially
during "rush hour." This is made necessary by our growing population and the inability to
build enough roadways to handle the demand. The question is how much and how fast
should we change. We must start from where we are, i.e., heavy dependence on the
automobile. We cannot force changes in travel behavior, but rather must encourage
change through workable transportation alternatives and programs. Transportation policy
alone cannot change transportation trends, changes in land use patterns must be made
also.
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO)
History and Governing Body
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (formerly known as the Austin
Transportation Study or ATS) was designated in 1973 as the official metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) for the Austin metropolitan area. MPOs are responsible for long -range
planning, setting short -term project priorities and approving the use of Federal funds for
transit and highways in the region. CAMPO represents local governments and
transportation agencies in the metropolitan area (Figure 1.1). The MPO Board of Directors,
known as the Policy Advisory Committee, is comprised primarily of local elected officials,
chosen by their respective local government boards to serve on the MPO. The 21- member
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), listed on page vii, governs CAMPO.
Study Area
The CAMPO study area, shown in Figure 1.1, includes 19 cities, Travis County and portions
of Williamson and Hays counties. The study area boundary has been defined since 1991 as
Travis County plus the city limits and extraterritorial jurisdictions of the cities of Austin,
Round Rock, Cedar Park, Leander, Hays and Buda. The CAMPO area includes portions of
the region that are currently urbanized or are likely to be urbanized in the next 20 years as
well as areas based on inter - community travel patterns in adjacent non -urban areas.
1 -1 June 12, 2000
The Vision
t WILLIAMSON
m
Figure 1.1
CAMPO Study Area
CAMPO Purpose and Responsibilities
As the metropolitan planning organization, CAMPO is the forum for cooperative
transportation planning and decision- making by local elected officials and transportation
agencies. CAMPO has two main purposes:
1) To coordinate regional transportation planning among 3 counties, 19 cities, the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Capital Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Capital Metro), and
2) To approve the use of federal transportation funds.
CAMPO is responsible for promoting a transportation system that embraces a variety of
modes in a manner that efficiently maximizes the mobility of people and goods, and
minimizes energy consumption, air and water pollution, and negative social impacts.
A transportation vision consistent with regional land use and social goals can guide
transportation system implementation. The following is the vision that the CAMPO PAC
adopted in 1994 to guide its work:
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 1 -2 June 12, 2000
The CAMPO regional transportation plan and program will provide for the maximum
mobility for the people of the greater Austin metropolitan area with the least detrimental
effects. It will support the goals of safety, clean air, clean water, and preservation and
respect for neighborhoods. It will anticipate future conditions and be realistic, affordable
and effective to the community. It will foster the development and maintenance of a
metropolitan area with full opportunity for and inclusion of a citizenry which is culturally,
economically and physically diverse.
The CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan (CAMPO 2025 Plan) is the region's long - range
transportation plan as required by federal law.
The previous long -range transportation plan, the Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation
Plan (2020 Plan), was adopted in December 1994. The plan was developed as a
transportation planning guide to the year 2020 containing policies and projects for
congestion /demand management, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, roadways and freight. It
replaced a plan adopted in 1986.
The 2020 Plan was based on a population forecast of 1.3 million people by the year 2020;
double the 1990 population of 687,000. To plan for the 100% increase in population, to
provide a sufficient and efficient transportation system, and to preserve the high quality of
life, the 2020 Plan identified a future multimodal transportation system. It included a 33%
increase in roadway lane miles, a 54 -mile fixed guideway transit system and high -
occupancy vehicle lanes on US 183, Loop 1 and IH 35. Bikeways and sidewalks are also
part of the planned transportation system.
The CAMPO 2025 Plan, which updates the Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(ATS 2020 Plan) adopted in December 1994, identifies the area's transportation needs
through the year 2025. The CAMPO 2025 Plan is intended to be a flexible guide for
planning, evaluating and implementing transportation projects within the Austin metropolitan
area.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
Federal regulation requires that transportation plans be updated every five years (every
three years in air quality non - attainment areas). The current update of the plan to 2025
builds upon the adopted 2020 Plan. More recent projections indicate that our population will
increase to 1.6 million by the year 2020 and 1.8 million by the year 2025. This phenomenal
growth rate presents a challenge to provide a transportation system that helps maintain the
healthy economic environment while preserving the high quality of life that Central Texas
offers.
The primary goal of the CAMPO 2025 Plan is to provide an acceptable level of mobility and
accessibility for the region's residents with the least detrimental effects. Within this overall
goal, specific transportation system objectives are listed below.
1) Support the region's social, environmental, economic, energy conservation, and
development goals.
2) Maintain personal mobility.
3) Provide a wide range of travel modes in a balanced and integrated transportation
system.
4) Maintain air quality.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 1-3 June 12, 2000
5) Promote compact urban development, higher densities and mixed land uses in transit
corridors.
The CAMPO 2025 Plan should be a win -win transportation solution for all communities and
jurisdictions within the CAMPO area. The CAMPO area is a family of independent
communities and neighborhoods with diverse characteristics and the CAMPO 2025 Plan is
intended to support the diversity and individuality of personal life choice. The Plan should
be responsive to the characteristics and goals, including transportation and land use
policies, of each jurisdiction and community while providing a complete and comprehensive
metropolitan transportation system. The emphasis of the CAMPO 2025 Plan is on the State
and Federal transportation system and it strives to support local jurisdiction plans for other
arterials and local transportation facilities.
Plan Preparation
It is important to develop the Plan in partnership with CAMPO member jurisdictions to
ensure that the CAMPO 2025 Plan is compatible with local plans. Agencies working with
CAMPO to prepare the Plan include the cities of Austin, Round Rock, Cedar Park, and
Pflugerville; Travis, Williamson, and Hays counties; Capital Metropolitan Transportation
Authority; Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS); Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT); Federal Highway Administration; and Federal Transit
Administration. The consulting firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. prepared
the travel demand forecast. Hicks & Company prepared the social and economic data
forecast.
Plan Implementation
The CAMPO 2025 Plan is the basic framework for planning and developing the regions
transportation system over the next 25 years. Although CAMPO coordinates the Plan, it is
the local jurisdictions and transportation providers such as TxDOT, Capital Metro, CARTS,
and CAMPO's member cities and counties that implement the transportation projects in the
Plan. CAMPO requests its member jurisdictions and agencies to adopt this Plan and
implement the Plan's recommendations.
Plan Intermodalism
The clear intent of changes to Federal law brought about by ISTEA and TEA 21 is the
coordination and planning of facilities across all major surface modes of travel into a
balanced and complementary or intermodal system. Transportation systems that
conveniently and reliably connect travel between a wide range of transportation modes
improve connectivity. Actions designed to make modal transfer points readily available and
convenient improve transportation connectivity. •
The term " intermodal" refers to the characteristic and/or capacity of a transportation network
to provide for convenient transfer from one mode of transportation to another. Common
examples include:
• Driving or walking to a park- and -ride lot and boarding a bus,
• Riding a bicycle to a bus stop and using the bike rack on a bus,
• Taking a shuttle to catch a flight at Austin - Bergstrom International Airport, or
• Tranferring air cargo to a truck.
The CAMPO 2025 Plan focuses on the following • elements: Public Transportation (Chapter
4), Congestion Management (Chapter 5), Bicycle and Pedestrian System (Chapter 6),
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 1-4 June 12, 2000
Roadway System (Chapter 7), and Freight System (Chapter 8). These five chapters are
interrelated and interdependent. CAMPO, working with member jurisdictions and the public,
has developed strategies to address the travel needs of the study area population without
sacrificing the community's social, environmental, and economic priorities; the five - element
intermodal framework of the CAMPO 2025 Plan is critical to achieving this goal.
It is important to continue working with member jurisdictions to ensure compatibility between
the jurisdictions and local plans. It is also important to monitor changes in transportation
characteristics and land use development patterns. This will allow CAMPO to analyze if the
adopted programs and policies are successful and will assist in developing solutions and
`strategies for the next revision of the Plan.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century (TEA 21)
Planning Regulations
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21s Century (TEA 21) requires metropolitan planning
organizations to develop long -range transportation plans that will:
"encourage and promote the safe and efficient management, operation, and
development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility
needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and development
within and through urbanized areas, while minimizing transportation- related
fuel consumption and air pollution."
The plans need to provide for the development and integrated management and operation
of all transportation systems and facilities, including pedestrian walkways and bicycle
facilities, that will function as an intermodal system for the MPO area, for the state and for
the nation. In developing the plans, consideration shall be given to all modes of
transportation and the planning process shall be continuing, cooperative and
comprehensive.
Metropolitan Planning Factors
TEA 21 legislation requires that metropolitan planning organizations consider seven specific
issues or "factors" when developing transportation plans and programs. The seven factors
are listed below along with a description of how the factor is addressed in CAMPO's plans
and programs.
Factor #1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by
enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
Access to jobs, airports, intermodal transportation facilities, recreation areas, etc., is
provided by interstate highways, state highways, major arterials, public transportation
and bicycle and sidewalk facilities. All of these modes are addressed throughout this
Plan, specifically in the Public Transportation System, Bicycle and Pedestrian System
and Roadway System (Chapters 4, 6 and 7). Congestion and traffic problems are often
cited as the number one concern of CAMPO area residents. The effects of congestion
are widespread and affect the movement of people and goods. Numerous projects in
this plan are included to reduce congestion and increase accessibility to these locations.
The economic vitality of the central city is addressed by inclusion of a light rail system.
Solutions to congestion can also include: add road space, reduce the number of
vehicles or increase the number of people in each vehicle, reduce the load on the
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 1 - June 12, 2000
system at peak travel times, and improve the operation of the roadway for increased
efficiency. These issues are discussed in Chapter 5, Congestion Management System.
To the extent that land use development encourages or requires vehicle use, it
contributes to congestion. By providing more mixed -use developments, alternative
modes of travel can be encouraged (see Chapter 4 and 10C, Public Transportation).
Factor #2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized
and nonmotorized users.
One of the goals of the Congestion Management System (Chapter 5) is to improve
mobility and safety by reducing peak hour vehicle travel demand and implementing
operational improvements to the transportation network. These actions can result in a
safer, more efficient transportation system. (Congestion Management projects are
funded through CAMPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).)
Capital Metro is pursuing measures for addressing transit users security needs, such as
on -board cameras, video surveillance at park- and -ride lots, emergency call boxes/public
telephones at all transit centers and improved lighting at major bus stop and on- street
transfer centers. These measures would supplement current security activities, which
include utilizing off -duty commissioned peace officers on bus routes, as well as
partnerships with the Austin Downtown Alliance Rangers.
The Bicycle & Pedestrian System (Chapter 6) and Policies (Chapter 10) provide
examples of safety and security issues. Actions to increase bicycling and walking
include more and better bike lanes and sidewalks (funded through the TIP and by local
jurisdictions and transportation providers), maps of safe routes, lockers, secure bicycle
parking and storage, and the elimination of barriers.
Factor #3. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for
freight.
Accessibility and mobility, are discussed throughout the plan in all sections beginning
with the introduction and background chapter and continuing with the modal sections
(Chapters 4 -9) and the policy section (Chapter 10).
Factor #4. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and
improve quality of life.
This factor is consistent with "The Vision" the CAMPO PAC prepared to guide its work
(see Chapter 1). The Environmental & Community Impacts section (Chapter 3)
discusses the CAMPO programs in place that address this factor as well as the
environmental policies in section D of Chapter 10. Also, CAMPO will continue to
endorse funding of Transportation Enhancement activities proposed by member
jurisdictions and planning agencies. These projects improve the quality of life through
implementing bicycle, pedestrian, historic preservation, landscaping, and other projects
to make communities more livable.
Factor #5. Enhance the Integration and connectivity of the transportation system,
across and between modes, for people and freight.
Better integration of modes is addressed throughout this plan in the chapters relating to
modal travel (public transportation, bicycles & pedestrians, roadways, freight) and
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 1 - 6 June 12, 2000
►'
congestion management. The plan policies section (Chapter 10) also contain several
polices to recommend and encourage integration and connectivity of the transportation
system.
Factor #6. Promote efficient system management and operation.
The plan encourages efficient management and operation in the plan policy section
(Chapter 10) and the Corridor Mobility Plan outlines typical projects in the areas of
transportation demand management and transportation system management. These
include systems on area freeways such as ramp metering, bottle -neck projects, closed -
circuit TV and TxDOT courtesy patrols to help clear incidents. On city streets, there are
projects to synchronize signals, among others. Refer to Chapter 5, Congestion
Management System and the CAMPO Transportation Improvement Program for more
details.
Factor #7. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
CAMPO encourages the preservation of the existing transportation system in the plan
policies section (Chapter 10). A financial plan policy encourages all member
jurisdictions to create and fund dedicated revenue accounts for necessary roadway
pavement reconstruction and rehabilitation work, and adequate transportation system
mairitenance. Working with partner agencies, estimated costs of maintaining the
roadway and public transit system are addressed in the Financial Plan (Chapter 9).
These factors reassert the primacy of policy, reinforce the link between planning and policy,
and establish broader relationships between transportation planning and other functional
planning such as for air quality and land use. Public participation is also crucial to the
transportation planning process and is described below and in CAMPO's adopted Public
Involvement Program.
Financially Constrained Plan
Federal transportation law specifies that the long -range transportation plan include a
financial plan that demonstrates how future projects and programs can be implemented.
Employing a number of reasonable assumptions, local, state and federal funding levels are
projected through the year 2025. All regional transportation projects included in the CAMPO
2025 Plan must be matched with appropriate funding sources. The result is a financially
constrained plan that addresses the region's future transportation needs.
Public Involvement Program
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's (CAMPO) Public Involvement
Program (PIP), as amended in 1995, guided the public involvement procedures in the
update of the Plan. CAMPO employed a wide range of activities and events to encourage
public participation in the planning process as discussed in this chapter.
Public Opinion Survey
In April 1997, CAMPO conducted a scientific Public Opinion Survey of approximately 1200
Austin metropolitan area residents regarding various transportation issues. The survey was
a follow -up to one previously conducted in April 1994. The primary focus of the survey was
on individuals commuting to and from school or work during peak hours. The principle
objectives of the survey were: 1) to assess current commuting patterns in the CAMPO area;
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 1 -7 June 12, 2000
4
2) to measure attitudes and factors that affect current commuting choices and that might
impact future decision- making to divert single- driver traffic to alternative modes; and 3) to
assess priorities for transportation development. Shown below are some of the findings:
• The average travel time to and from work/school is 20 minutes, with the average
distance traveled being 9 miles.
• Major roads used by people during their regular commute are:
IH 35: 27%
US 183: 17%
Loop 1: 25%
Ben White: 9%
None of these: 38%
• 82% of respondents are driving alone (Single- Occupant Vehicles - SOV); 7% use the
transit system; 2% carpool; 1% vanpool; 2% bicycle; 3% walk to work or school.
• 87% of CAMPO area commuters report no change in their mode of commuting over the
past 3 years.
• Suggestions for improving transportation in the CAMPO area in order of priority are as
follows:
Improvement 1994 Ranking 1997 Ranking
Synchronize traffic lights 1 1
More east -west thoroughfares 2 2
A light rail or commuter train 6 3
Improved bus service 3 4
More toll -free roads & freeways 4 5
Diverting SOVs to carpools, transit, etc. 5 6
Toll roads N/A 7
More & better bike lanes & sidewalks 7 8
• 75% of SOVs would be willing to ride light rail or commuter train as an alternative to
driving alone; 70% would consider carpools or vanpools.
• 55% of respondents made at least one stop during their commute to/from work/school.
This can be an obstacle to shifting commuters from SOVs to alternative modes of
transportation.
• 85% of respondents are familiar with Air Pollution Ozone Action Days and 38% take
action to reduce their pollution emissions. '
The survey results are useful in understanding the characteristics of travel to and from
work/school and in determining where vehicle trip reduction programs might best be
directed. The survey is also useful to know what types of transportation improvements area
residents prefer.
Citizens' Transportation Guide to the Austin Metropolitan Area
A Citizens' Transportation Guide to the Austin Metropolitan Area was developed by CAMPO
in 1998 to explain the development of transportation plans and programs and clarify
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 1 - 8 June 12, 2000
technical transportation terms. This guide provides basic information on the roles and
responsibilities of CAMPO as well as information on transportation activities of the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Capital Metro), and cities and counties in the CAMPO study area.
The Citizens' Transportation Guide was developed in response to a Policy Advisory
Committee Public Involvement Subcommittee mandate for staff to produce a document that
clearly defined the transportation planning programs and processes. The intent of the guide
was to provide better outreach to the public, in particular the traditionally underserved
populations regarding transportation issues and projects. The guide is available at all of the
libraries in the CAMPO study area, the CAMPO office, on the CAMPO web page at
htto: / /www.ci.austin.tx.us /ats, or by calling the CAMPO office at (512) 499 -2275.
Open Houses/Survevs
In October 1998, four Open Houses /Listening Sessions were held throughout the CAMPO
'planning area to inform citizens of the Plan update, to obtain public input and to identify
suggestions for change to the previous plan (adopted in 1994). These sessions were
announced through the distribution of flyers at the CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee
(PAC) meetings and various locations throughout the planning area; a mailout;
advertisements in various neighborhood newspapers; the CAMPO web page, and the
CAMPO newsletter. Additionally, the City of Austin's newsletter for neighborhood
associations, "At Your Doorstep," featured an article on the Plan update process and how
citizens could participate in the Plan update. The City's newsletter was also available on the
web.
In conjunction with the Open Houses /Listening Sessions, a survey was distributed at the
sessions, at PAC meetings, and sent to everyone on the CAMPO mailing list. The purpose
of the survey was to solicit public opinion on the ATS 2020 Plan (adopted in 1994) and ask
for suggested changes to the 2020 Plan as well as recommendations for funding allocations.
All responses received, were analyzed and incorporated, when appropriate, into this Plan
update.
As part of the survey, persons were asked to allocate a percentage of funding towards
various types of transportation improvements in order of preference. "A total of 75 responses
were received and the average order of preference is listed below:
Order of Importance Percent Allocation
1. Roadway Projects 28%
2. Public Transportation 25%
3. Congestion Reduction Program 18%
4. Bicycle Projects 8%
4. Pedestrian Projects 8%
6. Freight Projects 7%
7. Trail Proiects 6%
TOTAL 100%
Between March and August 1999, three public forums were held on the CAMPO 2025 Plan
to explain the Plan update process, the population and employment forecasts, and
transportation computer modeling. The various components of the CAMPO Plan were
presented to the public and Policy Advisory Committee. This allowed committee members
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 1 -9 June 12, 2000
and the public an opportunity to provide input on the Plan's components early and
throughout the Plan update process.
After presentation of the Draft CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan to the CAMPO PAC and
the public on March 20, 2000, four Open House Meetings were held throughout the
metropolitan area in March and April to allow citizens to talk with CAMPO, TxDOT and
Capital Metro staff and to comment on the Draft Plan. Two public hearings on the Draft Plan
were held on April 10 and May 8, 2000. All comments received from member jurisdictions
and the public were complied and responded to in the Response to Comments Report on
the Draft CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan. Where appropriate and feasible, public and
agency comments were incorporated into the Plan.
Transportation Project Development Process
Development of the long -range transportation plan is an important step in the development
of a transportation project. After projects are adopted in the transportation plan, they then
go through more detailed engineering and environmental analysis to determine the extent of
potential impact and to determine the best engineering design to minimize impacts.
Federally- funded transportation projects that have the potential for significant impact to the
natural or social environment are required by Federal law to follow the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The environmental process and documentation
identifies potential impacts and plans to mitigate or off -set potential significant impacts.
After public involvement, an approval decision is made by the Federal Highway
Administration or the Federal Transit Administration. This would come in the form of a
Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). State and local
governments have a formal process as well.
Once the planning process is complete, projects consistent with the plan are eligible for
federal funding through the programming process. Implementation of a long -range plan is
carried out gradually through shorter -term decisions made on which particular projects
should receive federal funds. Projects are funded through the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) which identifies federally- funded transportation projects over a three -year
period. Projects using federal transportation funds must be included in the long -range plan
prior to funding allocation. Final engineering design, right -of -way acquisition (if necessary),
relocation of utilities, and construction plans are then developed on approved and funded
projects. All of these phases of project development have to be in place before a project
can be constructed.
The long -range transportation plan helps guide these short-term funding decisions in two
ways — first, by the requirement that projects must be consistent with this plan to be eligible
for funding through the TIP process. And second, by the inclusion of likely candidate
projects for funding in the upcoming federal funding cycles. These proposed improvements
are included in the Public Transportation Plan Table in Chapter 4, Figure 4.6, and the
Roadway Plan Table in Chapter 7, Figure 7.1.
In adopting the CAMPO 2025 Plan, the region is not only identifying the transportation
system needs over the next 25 years, but also is setting the stage for the short-term strategy
and phasing for implementing the plan. Local jurisdictions and transportation providers
carry out the plan by using available resources to implement the projects and programs
contained in the CAMPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (the short -term funding
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
1 -10 June 12, 2000
document) and the Texas Department of Transportation ( TxDOT) Unified Transportation
Program (UTP), (TxDOT's ten -year project development plan, with a four -year funding
element). Every two years a new CAMPO TIP and every year a new TxDOT UTP is
adopted to continue the implementation of the long -range transportation plan. The long -
range transportation plan is revised every five years (every three years in air quality
nonattainment areas) and can be amended on a quarterly basis throughout the year.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
1 -11 June 12, 2000
This page intentionally blank.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 1 -12 June 12, 2000
2 Demographics & Surveys
Austin Metropolitan Area Trends
The population and the amount of travel has increased significantly in the Austin
metropolitan area since 1960. Population has quadrupled and people in the region are
traveling a lot more. On a per capita basis, vehicle miles traveled has quadrupled, the
number of vehicles owned has doubled, and the number of vehicle trips has increased by 50
percent. Basically, we are, on a per capita basis, driving longer distances, buying more
cars, and making more trips. Average vehicle occupancy for the work trip has decreased
from 1.6 persons per vehicle in 1960 to 1.1 persons per vehicle in 1990 (based on the U.S.
Census). The key factors for the average vehicle occupancy decline seem to be decreasing
family size and increasing vehicle availability. Along with other factors, these trends have
limited the number of people who carpool or use transit. The result is a tremendous
increase in automobile use and traffic congestion.
Of the four basic resources involved in a motor vehicle transportation system, two continue
to be abundant and relatively inexpensive - motor vehicles and gasoline (on a 20 -year
average). However, the other two - roadway capacity and air quality - are in short supply.
Because the CAMPO region will not be able to continue the trend of heavy automobile
dependence, changes must be made in the way we travel as the CAMPO area continues to
grow.
Population and Employment Forecasts
In May 1999, the CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee adopted, for transportation modeling
purposes, population and employment forecasts to the year 2025. The population and
employment totals for Travis, Williamson, and Hays counties were produced by the State
Data Center in February 1998, and were based on data from the 1990 U.S. Census. The
State Data Center produced forecasts for all Texas counties for four growth scenarios, each
with a different assumption about net in- migration: low, mid, high and very high. The
CAMPO forecasts are based on the State Data Center's 1990 -1996 high growth scenario.
Figure 2.1 shows county population figures by different estimates and forecasts. Please
note that the 2020 forecast for the CAMPO (ATS) area used in the 2020 ATS Plan adopted
in December 1994 was 1,268,000. According to the most recent State Data Center forecast
the 2020 CAMPO area population will be 1,605,000 and the 2025 population will be
1,778,000. Thus, the CAMPO 2025 Plan assumes over 500,000 more people in the
CAMPO /ATS area than the ATS 2020 Plan.
The three county population and employment forecast totals for 2007, 2015 and 2025 have
been distributed in 1074 traffic serial zones in the three counties. The distribution is based
on existing development ordinances, development trends and the availability of
"developable" land within each of traffic serial zones. Within the three county area the
population is forecasted to grow from 1,015,000 in 1997 to 2,271,000 by 2025. Employment
will more than double from 515,400 10 1,216,500 in 2025. The population and employment
totals by subarea are shown in Figure 2.2. The population and employment growth data
from 1997 to 2025 are distributed by the sixteen subareas shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.4.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 2 =1 June 12, 2000
Figure 2.1
Comparison of Population Estimates and Forecasts
Area (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1990 1997 2020 2020 2025
Census Estimate (2020 Plan) (New -1998) (2025 Plan)
Travis County 576,000 720,000 823,000 1,146,000 1,272,000
Williamson Co. 140,000 209,000 521,000 657,000 826,000
Hays Co. 66,000 86,000 201,000 154,000 173,000
CAMPO Area 702,000 859,000 1,268,000 1,605,000 1,778,000
Three Counties 782,000 1,015,000 1,545,000 1,957,000 2,271,000
Source: CAMPO and Hicks & Company.
Travel Survey Results
The CAMPO travel survey, conducted in 1998 -1999, collected the most recent travel data
for Travis, Williamson, and Hays counties. Travel Survey results allow planners to make
more valid recommendations regarding the best locations for future roads, bus routes, rail
lines, and other such facilities. The travel survey results are also used to determine the
number of roadway lanes, the number of rail cars, or the headway between buses that will
be needed to meet forecasted travel demand.
Only a small portion of these surveys were available in time to be used in the 2025 Plan
travel demand model that forecasts future roadway, bus, rail, bike, and walk trips by facility
or mode. The entire survey results will be used in the next CAMPO Plan update.
The types of surveys conducted included: household, workplace, commercial vehicle, travel
time, external station, and special generator surveys. A summary of the Commercial
Vehicle Survey and External Survey are presented in the Freight System, Chapter 8.
One of the most important surveys for transportation planning is the household survey. It
asks that households keep an accurate log of all trips made within a twenty -four hour period
which provides information on the types of trips, length of trips, destinations, mode of travel,
and numerous other factors that are all used in the development of the long -range
transportation plan. Below are some of the relevant results from the household survey:
Household /Person Data
• The average household size for the entire three county area is 2.6 persons with
Williamson and Hays counties having a larger average household size.
• Sampled households owned an average of 1.8 vehicles. 4% did not own a vehicle at all.
Travis County households had slightly fewer vehicles on average than Williamson and
Hays county households.
• 93% of respondents 16 years of age or older were licensed to drive.
• 50% of those employed had job flexibility in which they could vary their start and end
times as long as 40 hours were worked per week.
• 64% of Williamson County and 55% of Hays County residents had their primary job
located in Travis County. 95% of Travis County residents also worked in Travis County.
• 5% of respondents had a disability that limits the type of transportation she/he can use.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
2 -2 June 12, 2000
Trip Data
• Of all trips, 73% were made by personal vehicle, 4% by bus and 4% via walking.
• 93% of the trips generated in Travis County ended in the same county. 69% of
Williamson County trips ended in the same county while 30% ended in Travis County.
72% of Hays County generated trips ended in the same county while 25% ended in
Travis County.
• 17% of trips were made between 7am and 9am and 4pm and 6pm.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
2 -3 June 12, 2000
CAMPO
Sub -Area
CAMPO
Sub -Area
Figure 2.2
Population & Employment Year 2025 Forecasts By Subarea
CAMPO
Sub -Area
Name
1 Central 269,900
2 South 90,800
3 Southwest 24,600
4 Northwest 124,300
5 Post Oak 8,300
6 Williamson Urban 60,000
7 Georgetown 23,000
8 Northeast 44,300
9 Southeast 40,000
10 Buda/Kyle 16,700
11 San Marcos 36,100
12 Western Hays Co. 12,500
13 Northwest W.C. 5,100
14 Granger Lake 6,000
15 Hutto 5,100
16 Taylor 14,800
3 -County Population Total 781,500
CAMPO
Sub -Area
Name
1 Central
2 South
3 Southwest
4 Northwest
5 Post Oak
6 Williamson Urban
7 Georgetown
8 Northeast
9 Southeast
10 Buda/Kyle
11 San Marcos
12 Western Hays Co.
13 Northwest W.C.
14 Granger Lake
15 Hutto
16 Taylor
3 -County Employment Total
1990 CAMPO 2025 Population
Census Estimated 1997 Population Growth
Population Population Distribution 1997 -2025
CAMPO
Estimated 1997
Employment
254,000
26,500
16,600
91,600
3,100
28,100
6,200
33,800
18,700
3,300
21,800
3,800
2,800
500
800
3,800
515,400
299,900 426,700 126,800
117,800 186,900 69,100
37,800 101,100 63,300
174,900 281,100 106,200
12,200 36,600 24,400
98,300 415,800 317,500
38,200 190,700 152,500
62,500 206,200 143,700
46,700 96,700 50,000
21,600 50,800 29,200
45,100 79,700 34,600
19,400 42,600 23,200
8,200 35,200 27,000
7,500 21,600 14,100
8,200 57,900 49,700
17,000 40,600 23,600
1,015,300 2,270,200 1,254,900
2025 Employment
Employment Growth
Distribution 1997 -2025
376,800
54,400
41,100
159,600
10,900
170,000
53,000
130,900
95,700
8,400
41,800
7,900
16,100
4,600
15,400
29,900
1,216,500
122,800
27,900
24,500
68,000
7,800
141,900
46,800
97,100
77,000
5,100
20,000
4,100
13,300
4,100
14,600
26,100
701,100
Note: Numbers have been rounded to nearest hundred. Source: CAMPO, May 1999.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 2 June 12, 2000
Figure 2.3
Population Distribution
12
13 12
® 7
X38/1911
5 so
112/371
X
3
138/1011
6
X98/4161
0
145/801
4
X175/2811
1118/1871
2
1
1300/4271
122/511
010
14 16
18/221
®$
162/2061
147/971
16
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 2 -
1
1300/4271
Legend
Subarea Number
1997 Population Estimate/
2025 Population Forecast
pn Thousands)
1997 to 2025 Growth Ranking,
with 1 representing the most
growth, 16 the least growth
. the Dry q.t. In wows. 19 .`tlO°.
June 12,2000
{
Figure 2.4
Employment Distribution
4/8
13 12
0 7
5 13
13/111
3
1
6
O
128/1701
i
122/421
10 11
4
192/1601
127/54 1
2
1
1254/3771
3/8
el()
14 16
ILIE
11 15
08
134/1311
0 9
1/
16
®'
Hays
County
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 2 -6
Williamson
County
Travis
County
Subarea Number
1997 Employment Estimate/
2025 Employment Forecast
(in Thousands)
1997 to 2025 Growth Ranking,
0 with 1 representing the most
growth, 16 the least growth
a hc"a°a` 8..01.
1
1254/3771
Legend
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
June 12, 2000
3 Environmental & Community Impacts
While transportation is crucial to our economy and our personal lives, the environmental and
community impacts of transportation are equally significant and wide- ranging. Impacts from
transportation can affect the natural, social, and economic environment. During
development of the long -range transportation plan, environmental impacts are analyzed on
a regional scale. The CAMPO environmental and community programs are described below
and the environmental policies are in Chapter 10B.
Air Quality Program
CAMPO has funded air quality research projects and community outreach programs since
1992. CAMPO is a member of the CLEAN AIR Force of Central Texas (CAF) and
coordinates its air quality activities with the CAF. The CAF is a public - private partnership
developing innovative solutions for healthy air.
Transportation and Air Quality Conformity
The mandate for better coordination of air quality and transportation planning was set by the
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. The CAAA requires transportation plans and
investments in areas that do not attain federal clean air standards to conform to a state's
clean air plan. Conformity to a state air quality plan means that transportation activities will
not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment
of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
The federal Clean AIR Act establishes NAAQS for certain "criteria" pollutants. These
pollutants include carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. The nation's metropolitan areas are categorized as being in attainment or
nonattainment with the NAAQS. The Austin area has met all NAAQS except for ozone.
Based on 1997, 1998, and 1999 air pollution data, the Austin area has exceeded the new
ozone standard promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1997. EPA
may designate the entire 5- county Austin -San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area as
nonattainment for ozone in the year 2001. After that designation, all proposed "regionally
significant' transportation projects in Williamson, Travis, Hays, Caldwell and Bastrop
counties could be subject to construction delay until our area shows successful conformity
determination. Regionally significant projects include all state and other arterial roadways
and transit systems.
The new standard is based on an 8 -hour average in one day, 4"' highest yearly reading,
averaged over three years (1997- 1999), as shown in Figure 3.1. The three -year average for
our area is 89 ppb (5 ppb over what is federally allowable).
To prepare for the expected EPA nonattainment designation, CAMPO staff has been
working with federal and state agencies to ensure the conformity of this transportation plan
and CAMPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with air quality requirements for
nonattainment areas. The first task for a successful conformity determination is to
demonstrate that the entire area will not exceed 1990 emission levels from on -road motor
vehicles through the year 2025. CAMPO intends to do this by the early fall/winter of 2000.
If the conformity test shows that vehicle emissions from implementation of our 2025
Transportation Plan and TIP produce lower emissions than our area's 1990 emissions, our
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 3 -1 June 12, 2000
area will pass transportation conformity and will be allowed to implement approved
transportation projects through 2003.
A State Implementation Plan (SIP) development process will also begin in 2000. The SIP is
a plan to get our area back into compliance with the air quality standard and considers all
sources of pollution including transportation. The preparation and approval process of a SIP
could take between two to three years and will be developed in coordination with all
appropriate state and federal agencies, local jurisdictions and the CLEAN AIR Force of
Central Texas. The SIP is expected to be approved by EPA by 2003.
Figure 3.1
1st — 4 th Highest Ozone Levels: 1997 -1999 in the Austin Area
o_
0
c 120
0
100
iv 80
0.
60
ns
n- 40
., 20
0
N
0
0
N
1997
Ma:amlun Alloveble Ozone Level is 84ppb
1998
1999
• Highest Ozone Level ■2nd Highest Level
IR3rd Highest Level 04th Highest Level
Source: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), 1997 - 1999.
Research and Analysis
The state legislature in 1995, 1997 and 1999 approved funding to assist near non -
attainment areas in researching, modeling, and analyzing air quality data. Information
generated by these activities has been crucial to understanding the characteristics of ozone
pollution and designing cost - effective strategies to reduce ozone levels. These efforts are
augmented by CAMPO's grant funding of an air quality specialist position (funded through
the Transportation Improvement Program) to conduct and oversee the Austin area's
research activities to better understand the sources of pollution and to develop measures to
improve our air quality.
A recent emissions inventory prepared by the University of Texas Chemical Engineer
Department and CAMPO identifies the sources of NOx and VOCs in the five - county Austin
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). As shown in Figure 3.2, 75% of the NOx emissions are
from internal combustion engines (42% from cars, trucks and buses (on -road) and 33% from
gas powered lawn and garden equipment, boats and aircraft (non- road)). The figure also
illustrates that biogenics (vegetation) contribute two-thirds (66 %) of the volatile organic
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 3-2 June 12, 2000
compounds (VOCs). This means that NOx controls are very important in achieving ozone
reductions. Figure 3.3 illustrates the NOx and VOC contribution by county.
Completion of the emission inventory allows staff to identify the most effective strategies for
reducing VOC and NOx emissions and to calculate the percent reductions that are feasible.
CAMPO staff is active in overseeing the development of the urban airshed model that allows
identification of the consequences of particular emission reduction strategies. Figure 3.4
provides examples of on -road reduction measures that can be taken by private individuals,
businesses and government.
Ozone Action Day Program
An Ozone Action Day program was implemented in 1993. When ozone levels,
meteorological data, and predicted weather conditions indicate that the following day is likely
to see unusually high levels of ozone, an "Ozone Action Day" is declared. On these days,
residents in the Central Texas area are asked to reduce vehicle emissions by carpooling,
riding the bus, teleworking, bicycling, or walking. Employers are encouraged to consider
allowing flextime schedules to reduce driving during peak traffic hours, another technique for
reducing pollution levels. Avoiding use of other gasoline- powered equipment, such as
lawnmowers, and delaying re- fueling until after 5:00 p.m. is also encouraged.
Local news media announces Ozone Action Days on evening weather shows the evening
before and radio stations carry reminders throughout the day. The number, 343 -SMOG,
also carries a message letting residents know if an Ozone Action Day has been declared.
An extensive fax and e-mail notification list (almost 200 area employers, government
agencies, news media, and elected officials) is maintained; fax and e-mail notification is sent
the afternoon before a declared Ozone Action Day. This advance notification allows
employers and employees to plan the day before to make changes in their activities or
commute patterns. CAMPO and TxDOT have provided funds to the CAF for the Ozone
Action Day Program since 1993. Call the CLEAN AIR Force of Central Texas for more
information on the program (512 442 - 8015).
Commute,Solutions Program
CAMPO staffs and funds the Commute Solutions Program (with local match funds from
TxDOT and in -kind support from Capital Metro and the CLEAN AIR Force) to reduce traffic
congestion and improve air quality. Refer to Chapter 5, Congestion Management Program
for a description of the program.
- CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
3 -3 June 12, 2000
BIOGENICS
66%
1
Figure 3.2
1996 Total NOx & VOC Emissions by Pollution Source
(Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis & Williamson Counties)
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
Total NOx Emissions
Total VOC Emissions
ON-ROAD
3
ON-ROAD
42%
June 12, 2000
Figure 3.3
1996 Percent NOx & VOC Contribution by County
(Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis & Williamson Counties)
Williamson
21%
Travis
31%
Percent NOx Contribution
Travis
55%
Williamson
Bastrop
8%
Percent VOC Contribution
Caldwell
5%
Hays
11%
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 3 - June 12, 2000
Figure 3.4
On - Road Pollution Reduction Measures
Private Individuals and Business
1 Keep vehicles tuned and well maintained
2 Reduce driving
- transit
carpool
- bicycle
- walk
- telecommute
3 Don't pollute In the morning
- run errands later
- buy gas in the evening
Government
1 Inspection /maintenance and
remote sensing programs
2 Facilitate alternative modes
of transportation
3 Clean fleets
4 Congestion reduction
- intersection & signal
Improvements
incident management
grade separations
5 Cleaner gasoline
Noise Impacts
Noise, defined as unwanted or excessive sound, is an undesirable by- product of our modern
way of life. While noise emanates from many different sources, transportation noise is a
difficult source to avoid in today's society. Highway traffic noise is a major contributor to
overall transportation noise and a broad -based effort is needed to control transportation
noise. This effort must achieve the goals of personal privacy and environmental quality
while continuing the flow of needed transportation services for a quality society.
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), effective control of the
undesirable effects of highway traffic noise requires that land use near highways be
controlled, that vehicles themselves be quieted, and that mitigation of noise be undertaken
on individual highway projects, where reasonable and feasible. The first component is
traditionally an area of local responsibility. The other components are the joint responsibility
of private industry and of Federal, State, and local governments. The FHWA and other
Federal agencies encourage State and local governments to practice land use planning and
control in the vicinity of highways. The Federal government advocates that local
governments use their power to regulate land development in such a way that noise -
sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that
the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts
are minimized.
The Noise Control Act of 1972 gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the
authority to establish noise regulations to control major sources of noise, including
transportation vehicles and construction equipment. In addition, this legislation requires
EPA to issue noise emission standards for motor vehicles used in interstate commerce
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 3-6 June 12, 2000
(vehicles used to transport commodities across State boundaries) and requires the FHWA
Office of Motor Carrier Safety to force these noise emission standards.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 provides broad authority and
responsibilities for evaluating and mitigating adverse environmental effects including
highway traffic noise, where reasonable and feasible. The Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1970
mandates FIFWA to develop noise standards for mitigating highway traffic noise. FHWA
developed traffic noise -level criteria and abatement criteria that represents the upper limit of
acceptable highway traffic noise for different types of land uses and human activities. The
regulations do not require that the abatement criteria be met in every instance. The
regulations do require that every reasonable and feasible effort be made to provide noise
mitigation when the criteria are approached or exceeded. Compliance with the noise
regulations is a prerequisite for the granting of Federal -aid highway funds for construction or
reconstruction of a highway.
The FHWA regulation makes a distinction between projects for which noise abatement is
considered as a feature in a new or expanded highway (Type I) and those for which noise
abatement is considered as a retrofit feature on an existing highway (Type II). Type I
projects require noise abatement as part of the highway construction project if Federal -aid
funds are to be used and if a traffic noise impact is expected to occur. Type II projects are
completely voluntary on the part of the individual States, and funds for such projects
compete with all other construction needs of the States. It should be noted that the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 restricted Federal participation in Type II noise
barriers to projects approved before November 28, 1995 or are proposed along lands where
land development or substantial construction predated the existence of any highway.
As stated in the Transportation Policies section, (Chapter 10B), member jurisdictions and
agencies should follow the appropriate laws, rules, regulations and ordinances regarding
evaluation of noise impacts from roadway and transit projects, including, but not limited to
the National Environmental Policy Act.
CAMPO funded a traffic noise study on IH 35 and on Loop 1 in response to concerns about
noise levels in the vicinity of the freeways. According to the study, on IH 35, 87% of the
sites measured have worst -case noise levels that exceed FHWA guidelines. Loop 1 has
68% of the sites with worst -case noise levels in exceedance. The CAMPO PAC approved
$2.5 million to construct noise barriers in these vicinities. However, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) indicated that the Type II walls could not be constructed with
Federal -aid funds unless TxDOT established a Type II Program as part of their written
statewide noise policy. TxDOT has conducted a study to explore whether it is practical to
develop and carry out a statewide Type II Noise Abatement Program. This decision is
pending Texas Transportation Commission consideration.
If and when upgrades (expansions) are done to IH 35 and Loop 1, noise abatement
• measures would be considered under the Type I program if a traffic noise impact is
• expected to occur.
Water Quality
Roadway projects sometimes have the potential for causing localized impacts on the quality
of surface and ground water resources. Erosion from construction sites during clearing,
grading and cut - and -fill slopes can result in the sedimentation of adjacent surface waters. In
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
3 -7 June 12, 2000
addition, roadways may affect adjacent water resources with trash, oil and grease, and
accidental spills of transported materials. These pollutants can drain from roadway surfaces
during rainstorms.
Mitigation measures are always considered to reduce storm water runoff and degradation of
water resources. Most are directly incorporated into the design of the transportation facility.
Engineering on new projects, and improvements to existing facilities could include:
• Erosion control measures and runoff management techniques to prevent pollution of
adjacent waterways and ground water resources.
• Adjustments to the alignments of transportation facilities to avoid flood hazards.
• Use of permeable surfaces to reduce impacts on ground water recharge.
Other mitigation measures include compliance with federal, state and local policies,
standards and land use strategies that address water resources. In addition, all design,
construction and maintenance procedures are subject to coordination and review to conform
with EPA's National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) and the state's
TNRSS Edwards rules or Water Pollution Abatement Plans when a project lies within
sensitive water quality areas.
Energy Conservation
Federal transportation law requires that transportation plans promote energy efficiency and
conservation goals and that the transportation system is balanced and intermodal. CAMPO
strategies to conserve energy include a reduction in the dependence on conventional fuel
sources and the amount people travel. These strategies are in compliance with federal,
state, and local requirements.
In addition to the modal options such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities presented in
this Plan, CAMPO has identified congestion management techniques (Chapter 5) that
improve the efficiency of the traffic network and reduce traffic delays and congestion.
These techniques promote conservation of energy resources by encouraging alternative
modes of transportation and reducing vehicle miles of travel. In turn, these techniques
reduce congestion and traffic delays. The CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee approves the
use of funding for the Congestion Management Program in the Transportation Improvement
Program.
Environmental Sensitivity
The natural environmental sensitivity of the areas through which each roadway passes is
indicated by high, medium and low sensitivity in Chapter 7, Figure 7.1, Roadway Table. The
criteria for sensitivity and potential mitigation actions are described in Figure 3.5 below.
Figure 3.5
Criteria and Definitions for Determining Natural Environmental Sensitivity
I. Criteria
A. Area of Low Environmental Sensitivity
• No endangered species habitat, or minor amounts.
• No substantial water resources.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 3-8 June 12, 2000
• Limited Critical Environmental Features and or Biological Resources.
• Existing roadway with high - density or medium density development existing.
B. Area of Medium Environmental Sensitivity
• Endangered species habitat present but not prevalent.
• Minor water resources.
• Presence of Critical Environmental Features and Biological Resources.
• Existing roadway with low- density or medium - density development existing.
C. Area of High Environmental Sensitivity
• Substantial amounts of endangered species habitat present.
• Substantial water resources.
• Numerous Critical Environmental Features and Biological Resources.
• New or existing roadway in undeveloped area.
II. Potential Mitigation Actions
A. Low Sensitivity: Impacts may be mitigated during construction, design, or minor
route or alignment revisions.
B. Medium Sensitivity: Impacts may possibly be mitigated by design revisions, but will
most likely require alignment revisions.
C. High Sensitivity: Alignment or route revisions, or special design considerations will
be required to mitigate impacts.
Environmental Justice
Transportation projects and programs utilizing federal funds must provide investment equity
for all populations so that everyone receives their fair share of transportation improvements.
Likewise, projects must not cause disparate or disproportional impacts. As part of an effort
to comply with Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act, CAMPO has participated in open forums in lower income and minority
neighborhoods to inform citizens of transportation projects affecting their areas. The forums
have allowed people the opportunity to become familiar with the long —range transportation
plan and transportation planning process.
To better inform lower income and minority neighborhoods of transportation projects being
planned and/or proposed in their areas, notices of meetings are sent to active neighborhood
associations throughout the CAMPO area. Additionally, input from all citizens on
transportation needs is solicited at open house meetings held throughout the study area.
Surveys on how transportation funds should be spent are mailed out and also made
available at libraries, neighborhood centers, TxDOT public hearings, Capital Metro offices,
among others.
CAMPO performed a regional scale analysis of potential disproportionately high and
adverse impacts on minority populations and low - income populations. Each census tract in
the Austin metropolitan area was analyzed to determine poverty levels and ethnic
breakdown using 1990 census data. If a planned roadway project will traverse or is
adjacent to a census tract with the majority of the population (50% or more) containing
minority and/or low - income persons, as shown in Figure 3.6, a check (V) was placed in the
column titled "Area Environ. Justice Sensitivity" in the roadway table (Chapter 7, Figure 7.1)
next to the project segment. The check does not mean that the planned project would
cause disparate or disproportionate impacts. It is equally important that all persons receive
investment equity. The check identifies that there is the potential for Impact due to the
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 3 -9 June 12, 2000
presence of large populations of minority and /or low- income persons and that further
analysis should be performed during the project development process.
During project development, CAMPO staff will work with the entity responsible for
implementation of the project to assure that potential environmental justice issues are
adequately addressed and mitigated according to federal law.
Access to Jobs
The transportation system should provide service to former welfare recipients who will be
joining the workforce. TEA -21 authorized funds for the Access to Jobs transportation
initiative and Reverse Commute grants. These funds allow local governments and private
non - profit organizations to be eligible for discretionary grants for operating and capital
expenses for Jobs Access transportation service. The funds also can be used to promote
employer - provided transportation, non - traditional transit and transit voucher programs.
CAMPO is responsible for recommending Access to Jobs /Reverse Commute related
projects to the state and the Federal Transit Administration, and for selecting the applicants
to be considered for these grants.
To meet these goals, CAMPO is coordinating with the Welfare - To-Work Coalition comprised
of representatives from various social service agencies and other service providers
throughout Central Texas. The Coalition is looking at how to streamline the process for
moving recipients from receiving welfare to finding permanent employment
Each December 31, CAMPO must collect, endorse and forward Access to Jobs/Reverse
Commute projects to the Federal Highway Administration for funding consideration. These
funds have only been available since 1998 and staff will continue working with the Coalition
to identify better ways to reach those in need of special transportation service.
Transportation and Land Use
The relationship between transportation and land use is circular: transportation systems
influence land use patterns that in turn influence transportation systems. Proactive land use
planning, with an eye to reducing the demand for auto travel, is a key element in a
successful long -term approach.
Urban design that encourages compact growth can reduce our dependence on the
automobile and enhance the role of transit. Higher residential densities, mixed land uses,
and grid -like circulation patterns in neighborhoods shorten trips, encourage walking and
allow more people to use transit instead of cars. The challenge is to have more viable
mobility choices that provide direct, safe, and convenient connections with places people
want to go.
Since transportation system planning takes place at the regional level and land use planning
at the local level, coordinating transportation and land use can be difficult. In the CAMPO
study area, planning and regulating land use are the responsibility of individual jurisdictions.
Many of the same elected officials who sit on the PAC have responsibility within their local
jurisdictions for land use decisions. Thus, there is a link through which plans and policies
developed at the regional level can be adopted by the local jurisdictions participating in the
CAMPO planning process.
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 3 June 12, 2000
Figure 3.6
Census Tracts With a Large Population (50% or more) of
Minority and /or Low Income Persons
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 3 -11
June 12, 2000
The City of Austin contains about two-thirds of the existing CAMPO -area population. The
City — concerned about maintaining a strong and healthy central core — launched its Smart
Growth Initiative to help manage future growth. The City's Smart Growth Initiative is an
effort to reshape urban and suburban growth to enhance communities, strengthen the
economy, and protect the environment. Smart Growth seeks to decrease suburban sprawl
and invest in existing developed areas.
The major principles of the City of Austin's initiative focus on revitalizing the urban core,
protecting the character of existing neighborhoods, protecting environmental quality,
encouraging efficient development patterns, and rewarding developers for projects that meet
Smart Growth goals. Two principles of particular importance to CAMPO are:
• Creating development that is pedestrian and transit friendly. This means permitting a
mix of land uses and increased density where appropriate.
• Decreasing automobile congestion by providing alternative modes of transportation
such as bus, Tight rail, bicycle and improved pedestrian facilities.
The City of Pflugerville addresses smart growth concepts in their Land Use and Intermodal
Thoroughfare Plan. Policy recommendations include the viable approach of using
performance incentives to the developer or landowner in the Downtown Overlay District. An
example would be parking concessions might be offered to a developer in exchange for the
inclusion of amenity features/areas being added to the project including outdoor sitting
areas, fountains, landscaping, etc. Another policy addresses the concentration of major
public facilities being located downtown or in the central core in order to preserve the vitality
and character of the downtown as a city center.
The City of Cedar Park `s Comprehensive Plan was developed to act as a mechanism from
which decisions can be made that will shape Cedar Park 10, 20, 30 years or more into the
future. The Mission Statement in the Plan identifies three specific goals related to smart
growth concepts:
• Build a community where residents can do more than just live in their houses, where
they can interact socially, economically and politically;
• Develop a viable transportation network and thoroughfare plan that fosters multi -modal
mobility, connecting and accessibility throughout Cedar Park;
Establish a comprehensive land use and zoning strategy that provides a greater diversity of
use classifications for convenience and accessibility while preserving neighborhoods
through compatibility design standards.
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 3 - June 12, 2000
Ridership
by Service Type
Passenger Trips
(1998)
Fixed Route
20.9 million
University of Texas Shuttle
7.1 million
Paratransit
0.4 million
Other purchased transportation
1.5 million
Total
29.9 million
4 Public Transportation System
The public transportation component of the 2025 transportation system includes bus
service, vanpools, fixed guideway transit, light rail, and commuter rail. This chapter
describes current transit services and proposed systems to meet future mobility needs.
Definitions of public transportation facility and service terms can be found in the glossary in
Chapter 11.
Currently, traditional fixed -route bus service is provided by Capital Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Capital Metro) in the urbanized area and by Capital Area Rural
Transportation System (CARTS) in the suburban and rural areas. Descriptions of both
service providers follow.
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro)
Capital Metro was created in January 1985 to provide public transportation service to the
greater Austin metropolitan area. Capital Metro's service area currently covers 502 square
miles with a population of over 618,000 (see Figure 4.1). The agency's operations are
supported by a 1% sales tax, farebox revenues, contract fees and federal transit grants.
The agency provides a broad range of transit services for area residents including:
• Fixed -route bus service, including express park- and -ride, flyers, and downtown
circulators (The Di11o)
• University of Texas Shuttle
• Paratransit services
• Vanpools
• Apple (shuttle service between Austin's magnet schools)
• E -Z Rider (demand response service for seniors)
• Public events service
• Ridematching
Fixed -route ridership increased 42% in the last five years: in 1993 ridership was 14.7 million
annual passenger trips compared to 20.9 million in 1998. Total ridership increased 14%
between 1993 and 1998: from 26.2 million to 29.9 million. Figure 4.2 shows 1998 ridership
by service type.
Figure 4.2
Capital Metro Ridership
Source: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, January 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
4 -1
June 12, 2000
Figure 4.1
CMTA Service Area
Source: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, February 2000
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 4 -2 June 12, 2000
SERVICE AREA MAP
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Austin, Texas
r1. /.
Y
v,
/
�,
e z
M
R . �.
QT;
+
t
°$.,.
'�=
t.-
ar p
.
ognOtiS
'
;
, � i ✓ + �O
X3 7
k►r
r
a
OF
' .* a I. 1�
y " .
D M
l
r ��
€
��
» . .��
vw .
r
4 1
,�
CSC"
.
I
/
_
1
J
�
agar
/ :
N A
Legend
' serum Area
Mavis Co�
L County awnduy
'�
ai'S i;.
? r�
F W..r .
'a�
,:
>`+{
t t
�
�
a
♦
4 t
q
; t1
fl.
�.
Area
Serisdi ctions
'Jurisdictions
sown Remora
Lap Vista
Mawr
Will..r are. i 1
�.
METRO
�w
Maha Rdka.uw
,�.....
Figure 4.1
CMTA Service Area
Source: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, February 2000
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 4 -2 June 12, 2000
Special Projects and Services
Build Greater Austin: Started in 1994, the BGA program is dedicated to investing in the
area's infrastructure that supports transportation. BGA typically funds street repairs, transit
corridor improvements, sidewalks, curb ramps, hike -and -bike trails, and park- and -ride lot
improvements. Capital Metro's annual contribution to the 10 -year program is approximately
$7 million. BGA will conclude in 2003.
University of Texas Shuttle: The student shuttle, operated by a private contractor, offers
free bus service to the UT campus on 9 radial and 3 circulator routes with headways of
about 5 minutes. Ridership on the UT shuttle was just over 7 million in 1998.
Downtown Austin Circulator Routes: A fleet of trolley buses — called Dillos— offers free
service on routes in Austin's central business district (CBD). Dillos run every 10 -20 minutes
(depending on the route) from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Ridership averages 111,500 per
month or about 1.3 million passenger trips per year.
Vanpool Program: Capital Metro works with major employers in their service area to
promote carpooling and vanpooling. The agency provides computerized ridematching to
identify employees that live and work in the same area, and provides vans for groups of
commuters that wish to share the ride to and from work. In 1999 Capital Metro operated
105 vanpools and provided 954 rideshare matches.
Fixed Guideway: Capital Metro is currently in the planning and project development
process for a fixed guideway system that includes light rail, bus rapid transit, and high -
occupancy- vehicle lane options. The agency's long -term transit initiative is described below
in the section entitled Long -Term Public Transportation System.
Privatization
Capital Metro contracts with other transportation providers for all or a portion of the following
services: fixed -route bus service for feeder routes; demand response service for Leander,
Lago Vista and Jonestown; special transit service (STS) for elderly and disabled persons;
and the University of Texas shuttle service.
Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS)
CARTS has been providing a mix of transportation services since 1978. CARTS operates
fixed route, demand response, and commuter services from limited points in its 9- county
service area. The CARTS service area, which extends well outside the CAMPO study
boundary, includes the counties of Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee,
Williamson and the non - urbanized portion of Travis County.
CARTS works in partnership with Capital Metro to coordinate services and resources where
their service areas overlap in Travis County and Williamson County. Since 1986, CARTS
and Capital Metro have cooperated to develop a seamless connection between rural and
metropolitan transit resources.
Figure 4.3 shows CARTS' ridership and operating characteristics in 1997 and 1998. In 1998
CARTS discontinued its transportation services for the Headstart program and reduced
other transit service based on vehicle reliability, which account for the reduction in trips,
vehicle miles and operating expenses in 1998.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan - 4 - June 12, 2000
Figure 4.3
CARTS' Ridership and Operating Characteristics
Source: 1998 Texas Transit Statistics, TxDOT, July 1999.
Long -Term Public Transportation System
The major elements of CAMPO's long -term planned transit network are illustrated in Figure
4.4. The transit network includes 52 miles of fixed guideway (light rail or bus rapid transit), a
proposed commuter rail system between Austin and San Antonio, and express bus routes.
Figure 4.5 identifies the different types of transit service and describes each in terms of
function, right -of -way requirements, vehicle capacity, and peak -hour frequency. Definitions
of public transportation facilities and services can be found in the glossary in Chapter 11.
Figure 4.6 shows the phased implementation of recommended transit improvements. An
essential component of the long -term network is the 52 -mile fixed guideway system. Capital
Metro's implementation schedule considers funding availability and a goal of minimizing
construction impacts through scheduled phasing. The approach will be refined as more
information is gathered in the project development process which is currently underway.
Capital Metro's Board of Directors will ultimately determine the phasing of various segments
of the fixed guideway system. Funding decisions will focus on the differences between
adopting a pay -as- you-go approach (that is, financing the system through existing and
projected reserves, passenger fares, sales tax revenue and federal transit grants) versus
issuing long -term debt (which requires voter approval). For example, the full 52 -mile system
could be in operation by 2016 if long -term debt is issued, compared to full build -out by 2022
if the agency chooses the more conservative pay -as- you-go approach.
Capital Metro's Fixed Guideway System
In October 1999 Capital Metro adopted a 20 -mile fixed guideway system as the initial phase
of its long -range transportation plan. The initial phase is further divided into two sub -
phases. Phase 1A, the starter line, is a 15 -mile light rail line from McNeil Rd. south to the
central business district (CBD). Phase 1B includes 3 miles of fixed guideway (either light rail
or bus rapid transit) from the CBD south to Ben White Blvd. and 2 miles of fixed guideway
from the CBD east to Pleasant Valley/ MLK Blvd. (see Figure 4.7). Figure 4.8, which shows
capital costs and projected ridership for each phase, reflects Capital Metro's conservative
approach toward estimating costs and ridership —that is, cost estimates are on the high side
and ridership estimates are on the low side so that the agency has solid information on
which to base its decisions.
The initial phase of the fixed guideway system will operate from McNeil Rd. through the CBD
to Ben White Blvd. both in existing rail right -of -way owned by Capital Metro and in street
rights -of -way. The east extension, linking East Austin to the CBD, may operate in existing
rail right -of -way owned by Capital Metro.
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 4-4 June 12, 2000
1997
1998
Total One -Way Passenger Trips
349,942
316,030
Average Number of Vehicles
74
74
Total Vehicle Miles
1,618,992
1,570,629
Total Operating Expenses
$2,787,445
$2,747,557
Figure 4.3
CARTS' Ridership and Operating Characteristics
Source: 1998 Texas Transit Statistics, TxDOT, July 1999.
Long -Term Public Transportation System
The major elements of CAMPO's long -term planned transit network are illustrated in Figure
4.4. The transit network includes 52 miles of fixed guideway (light rail or bus rapid transit), a
proposed commuter rail system between Austin and San Antonio, and express bus routes.
Figure 4.5 identifies the different types of transit service and describes each in terms of
function, right -of -way requirements, vehicle capacity, and peak -hour frequency. Definitions
of public transportation facilities and services can be found in the glossary in Chapter 11.
Figure 4.6 shows the phased implementation of recommended transit improvements. An
essential component of the long -term network is the 52 -mile fixed guideway system. Capital
Metro's implementation schedule considers funding availability and a goal of minimizing
construction impacts through scheduled phasing. The approach will be refined as more
information is gathered in the project development process which is currently underway.
Capital Metro's Board of Directors will ultimately determine the phasing of various segments
of the fixed guideway system. Funding decisions will focus on the differences between
adopting a pay -as- you-go approach (that is, financing the system through existing and
projected reserves, passenger fares, sales tax revenue and federal transit grants) versus
issuing long -term debt (which requires voter approval). For example, the full 52 -mile system
could be in operation by 2016 if long -term debt is issued, compared to full build -out by 2022
if the agency chooses the more conservative pay -as- you-go approach.
Capital Metro's Fixed Guideway System
In October 1999 Capital Metro adopted a 20 -mile fixed guideway system as the initial phase
of its long -range transportation plan. The initial phase is further divided into two sub -
phases. Phase 1A, the starter line, is a 15 -mile light rail line from McNeil Rd. south to the
central business district (CBD). Phase 1B includes 3 miles of fixed guideway (either light rail
or bus rapid transit) from the CBD south to Ben White Blvd. and 2 miles of fixed guideway
from the CBD east to Pleasant Valley/ MLK Blvd. (see Figure 4.7). Figure 4.8, which shows
capital costs and projected ridership for each phase, reflects Capital Metro's conservative
approach toward estimating costs and ridership —that is, cost estimates are on the high side
and ridership estimates are on the low side so that the agency has solid information on
which to base its decisions.
The initial phase of the fixed guideway system will operate from McNeil Rd. through the CBD
to Ben White Blvd. both in existing rail right -of -way owned by Capital Metro and in street
rights -of -way. The east extension, linking East Austin to the CBD, may operate in existing
rail right -of -way owned by Capital Metro.
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 4-4 June 12, 2000
Figure 4.4
Long -Term Transit Network
Northwest
Express
Southwest
Express
San Antonio
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
4 -5
Mop., June 12. x[03
CAMPO, 6-20.00
Georgetown
Austin -
Bergst C
vm
fnternatfonaf $
Airport iN
\ N
Adopted Rall Corridors
II II II Express Bus Corridors
11111111 Preserve Rall Corridors
June 12, 2000
Transit
Service
Type
Function
ROW
Operation
ROW
Req'ments,
Double Track
(feet)
Average
Operating
Speed
(mph)
Vehicle
Capacity
Peak -Hour
Frequency
(minutes)
Transportation
Nodes
Served
Fixed Guideway
Commuter Rail
Serves longer- distance
commute trips in heavily
traveled corridors
Reserved ROW, grade-
separated intersections
25-40
40-50
100
20-30
Park - and -ride lots,
transfer centers
Ught Rail
Serves a wide range of trip
purposes in heavily traveled
corridors
Shared and/or reserved track in
rail and road ROW
25-35
20-25
150
5-10
Park - and -ride lots,
transfer centers
Bus Rapid Transit
Serves a wide range of trip
purposes in heavily traveled
corridors
Exclusive ROW
25-70
20-25
45-65
2 -5
Park - and -ride lots,
transfer centers
Electric Trolley Bus
Serves a wide range of trip
purposes In heavily traveled
corridors
On shared or reserved traffic
lanes
25-75
15-20
45
5-10
Park - and -ride lots,
transfer centers
Express Bus
Serves commute and school
trips from outer areas. Most
trips are home -based
On major roads in mixed traffic
or on HOV lanes
NA
20-30
45
5-20
Park - and -ride lots,
kiss- and -ride lots
Local Bus
Radial
Serves mostly home -based
trips
Along local streets In mixed
traffic
NA
15-20
45
5-30
Transfer centers,
local bus stops
Crosstown
Serves mostly home -based
trips
Along local streets in mixed
traffic
NA
15-20
45
10-30
Transfer centers,
local bus stops
Feeder
Serves mostly home -based
trips
Along local streets in mixed ;
traffic
NA
15-20
45
15-30
Transfer centers,
local bus stops
Circulator
Serves periphery residential
and park- and -ride lots
Along local streets In mixed '
traffic or reserved lanes
NA
5-10
25
5-30
Fringe parking or
residential
Figure 4.5
Types of Transit Service
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
4 -6
June 12, 2000
Service/Facility
Type
Existing &
Committed
Year 2007
Year 2015
Year 2025
Light Rail
or Fixed Guideway
None
McNeil to CBD
CBD to Ben White'
CBD /Seaholm to
Pleasant Valley /MLK Blvd.'
Continued development of
ultimate 2025 system'
Leander to McNeil
Lamar /Airport Blvd. to
Pleasant Valley /MLK Blvd.
Pleasant Valley to ABIA
Ben White to Slaughter
Commuter Rail
None
None
Round Rock to San Antonio'
Round Rock to Georgetown
Park!Bike -n -Ride Lots
(lots with 50+ spaces)
Austin High School
Hyde Park
N. Lamar Transfer Center
Pavilion
US 183@ RM 620
Leander
Oak Hill
Howard Ln. @ IH 35
Wm. Cannon @ IH 35
Slaughter Ln. @ IH 35
Ben White @ Loop 1
Wm. Cannon @ Loop 1
IH 35N @ Bratton Ln.
Wells Branch @ Loop1
US 290W @ Loop 1
Slaughter Ln. @ Loop 1
RM 2222 @ Loop 360
RM 2222 @ RM 620
US 290E
Express Bus Service
17 express routes
11 UT Shuttle routes
Add 2-3 express routes
Add 2-3 express routes
Add 2 -3 express routes
Major Transfer Centers
North Lamar
Northwest
Northeast
South
Southwest
McNeil Rd. @ LRT Station
Slaughter Ln. @ LRT Terminus
Central/Downtown
-
Far Northwest
Loop 1 /Partner
IH 35/4 St.
Congress/Ben White
Southeast
' Buildout depends on available funding.
2 Buildout depends on available funding.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 4 -7
Figure 4.6
2025 Public Transportation Plan
June 12, 2000
Service /Facility
Type
Existing &
Committed
Year2007
Year2015
Year2025
Local Fixed Route
23 radial routes
11 crosstown routes
10 feeder routes
Redesigned bus network
Additional crosstown and feeder
routes
Redesigned bus network
Additional crosstown and
ieeder routes
Redesigned bus network
Additional crosstown and
ieeder routes
Special Circulators
4 downtown Dillo routes
3 UT Shuttle routes
1 central area Dillo
Employer- sponsored shuttles
Neighborhood shuttles
Employer- sponsored shuttles
Neighborhood shuttles
Special Transit Service
System -wide
System -wide
System -wide
System -wide
Travel Demand
Management (Tom)
105 vanpools
Ridematching
Guaranteed Ride Home
Free fare on Ozone Action
Days
Bicycle racks on all fixed -
route buses
Transit Opportunity Partners
(TOPS)
140 additional vans
(20 /year)
Continued
Continued
Transportation System
Management (TSM)
intersection improvements
Bus pull -outs
Queue bypass lanes for
buses
Continued
Diamond lanes/special bus
lanes on major arterials
Diamond lanes/special bus
lanes on major arterials
Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS)
Smart cards
Automatic vehicle locator (AVL)
Bus pre - emption signals
Customer information system
Advanced signal timing
Bus pre - emption signals
AVL continued
Advanced signal timing
Bus pre - emption signals
Figure 4.6, 2025 Public Transportation Plan, continued
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 4 -8
June 12, 2000
Figure 4.7
Capital Metro's Fixed Guideway System: Initial Phase
11411
4 1 111127
Austin -
/ Bergstrom
International
Airport
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
4 -9
Phase 1 A
Nn■ Phase 1B
dMP0,31W
June 12, 2000
The proposed transit service will operate at 10- minute frequencies during the morning and
evening rush hours, with off-peak frequencies of 20 minutes. The system will include 26
stations along the 20 -mile route, and provide direct access to the University of Texas, the
State Capitol Complex, and the CBD.
In November 1999, Capital Metro submitted the initial phase to the Federal Transit
Administration for funding under the New Starts capital grant program. FTA is expected to
announce its New Starts projects in March 2000.
Figure 4.9 shows the preliminary phasing and capital costs for subsequent phases of Capital
Metro's light rail transit system not yet approved. Figure 4.9 also includes a proposed
commuter rail line that would link the Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas, and would
connect with Capital Metro's proposed Tight rail system in two locations— Austin's CBD and
McNeil Rd., the north terminus of the proposed starter line. The Austin -San Antonio
commuter rail project is described in more detail below.
Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail
A regional passenger rail system connecting the Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas
is being explored as a way to ease traffic congestion on IH 35. The proposed commuter rail
service would use the existing Union Pacific right -of -way that parallels IH 35. The 110 -mile
rail system would run from Georgetown to San Antonio with stations in Austin, Round Rock,
San Marcos, and New Braunfels.
A 1999 feasibility study of passenger rail in the Austin -San Antonio Corridor concluded that
a commuter rail system is both technically and financially feasible. A summary of the
proposed rail system is shown in Figure 4.10.
Thirty -nine miles of the 110 -mile commuter rail system lie within the CAMPO study area.
Figure 4.4 shows the location of the rail system in the CAMPO study area. Figure 4.11
shows the length and cost of the segment in the CAMPO study area as well as the other
three segments.
Transit - Oriented Development
CAMPO places major emphasis on public transportation to meet our future mobility needs.
Many arterial roadways and highways in the region are congested because the single -
occupant vehicle (SOV) is our predominant travel mode. CAMPO advocates reducing our
dependence on SOV travel through transportation alternatives and programs. But
transportation policy alone cannot change transportation trends, changes in land use trends
must also be made.
Transit - oriented development concentrates new and infill development in transit corridors
and around transit stations. It encourages transit use by creating mixed land use, walkable
communities that do not require a car for personal mobility. Transit - oriented design has
been proven to be an economic boon, revitalizing downtowns and main streets and
significantly reducing auto dependency.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 4 -10 June 12, 2000
Line
Segment
Length
(miles)
Stations
Total
Capital
Cost (1999
$ millions)
Capital
Cost per
Mlle (1999
$ millions)
Projected
2007
Weekday
Ridership
Phase IA
Red/Green
McNeil to CBD
14.6
16
$ 596.5
$ 40.9
32,100
Lamar /Airport to East
Connector
Maintenance Facility
-
-
$ 46.2
-
-
Phase l A Total
14.6
16
$ 642.7
$ 44.0
32,100
Orange'
Phase 1B
Red/Green
CBD to Ben White
3.4
5
$ 204.1
$ 60.0
8,500
Orange
Seaholm to Pleasant Valley
2.0
5
$ 72.8
$ 36.4
2,600
Phase 1B Total
5.4
10
$ 276.9
$ 51.3
11,100
Line
Segment
Length
(miles)
Stations
Total
Capital
Cost (1999
$ millions)
Capital
Cost per
Mlle (1999
$ millions)
Projected
2007
Weekday
Ridership
Red/Green'
Ben White to Slaughter
4.1
3
$ 172.6
$ 42.1
5,400
Red'
Lamar /Airport to East
Connector
5.9
4
$ 133.5
$22.6
6,000
Red'
Leander to McNeil
15.3
2
$ 291.9
$19.1
2,400
Orange'
Pleasant Valley to ABIA
7.0
6
$ 401.5
$ 57.4
3,400
Blue`
Austin -San Antonio
Commuter Rail
110
12
$ 475.0
$ 4.3
8,000
Figure 4.8
Fixed Guideway System
Preliminary Phasing & Capital Costs: Initial Phase
Source: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Nov. 1999
Figure 4.9
Fixed Guideway System
Preliminary Phasing & Capital Costs: Subsequent Phases
(timing and sequence to be determined)
Sources: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Nov. 1999
2 Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail Study, Final Report, Carter - Burgess, July 1999
Note: Commuter rail capital costs are 1998 dollars; projected ridership is for opening year (2000).
Cost within the CAMPO study area is $171.5 million.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 4 - 11 June 12, 2000
Train Schedule
Peak Hours: every 30 minutes
Off -Peak Hours: every 90 minutes
One - Way Fares
2 Zones (Austin to San Antonio): $9.00
1 Zone (San Marcos to either end): $4.50
Travel Time
Austin to San Antonio: 103 minutes
System Length
110 miles
Stations
12
Average Speed
45 mph
Operating Hours
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Ridership
Year 2000: 8,000 per weekday
Year 2020: 11.000 per weekday
Grade Crossings
Grade Separated Crossings: 56
New Crossings: 6
Improved At -Grade crossings: 117
Construction Cost
(1998 dollars)
New -Track Option: $475 million
Shared -Track Option: $250 million
Operation & Maintenance
Cost (1998 dollars)
$24 million /year
Financing: Construction
Federal: 50%
Regional: 50% (0.11c tax)
Financing: Operation &
Maintenance
Passenger Fares: 55%
Federal: 10%
Regional: 35% (0.0150 tax)
Segment
Length
(miles)
Percent
(of total length)
Construction
Cost
Percent
(of total cost)
Georgetown —
Round Rock
6
5.3%
$25.6 million
5.4%
CAMPO
study area
39
35.3%
$171.5 million
36.1%
Kyle — Bexar
County line
43
39.3%
$195.7 million
41.2%
San Antonio MPO
study area
22
20.1%
$82.2 million
17.3%
TOTAL
110
100%
$475 million
100%
Figure 4.10
Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail
System Summary
Source: Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail Study, Final Report, Carter - Burgess, July 1999
Figure 4.11
Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail
Construction Cost by Segment
Source: Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail Study, Final Report, Carter - Burgess, July 1999
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 4 -12
June 12, 2000
Transit stations and transit stops can have abundant land uses, including jobs, housing,
retail, restaurants, daycare centers, services, athletic facilities, pedestrian plazas and parks,
and bicycle parking and lockers. Multiple activities encourage transit stations to become
more than just a place to park the car. Transit stops and stations can be integrated into
neighborhoods so that they provide a sense of place and incorporate the street into the
neighborhood.
Transit - oriented development offers a new model for managing growth. Transit - oriented
design can:
1. Promote economic development by attracting consumers, businesses and services to
the area surrounding the transit station;
2. Increase housing options by encouraging mixed -use development, which combines
commercial and residential structures; and
3. Improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of
vehicle trips.
In addition to supporting more efficient land -use patterns, transit is cost - effective. Because
of its greater carrying - capacity, transit improvements can generate cost savings by reducing
the need for roadway construction and the need for parking facilities. To the degree that
transit can support compact growth patterns, transit improvements can reduce infrastructure
requirements.
And, finally, transit provides essential mobility. There are many people throughout the
region who must rely on transit. Commuters, the disabled, the elderly, lower income
citizens, choice riders, rural residents —all of these groups have a stake in the quality and
availability of transit service. Serving the mobility needs of these constituents over the next
25 years is an essential responsibility of the public transportation system.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 4 -13 June 12, 2000
This page intentionally blank.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 4 -14 June 12, 2000
5 Congestion Management System
The purpose of the Congestion Management System is to increase vehicular occupancy,
reduce vehicle trips, and improve mobility and safety by reducing peak hour vehicle travel
demand and implementing operational improvements to the transportation network. This in
turn will reduce air pollution and fuel consumption and result in a safer, more efficient
transportation system.
Transportation System Monitoring
Criteria Used for Determining Congestion
Traffic congestion throughout the CAMPO region is measured annually by the City of Austin
Public Works and Transportation Department. The Transportation Research Board defines
traffic congestion as "travel time or delay in excess of that normally incurred under free - flow
travel conditions. The amount of congestion that is acceptable varies by type of
transportation facility, geographic location and time of day." The following peak hour criteria
are used as a general guideline to locate automobile traffic congestion in the CAMPO area:
1. Freeway mainlanes:
Congestion exists where travel time exceeds 1.75 min. / mile (average speed less than
35 mph).
2. Major arterial roadways and frontage roads where speed limit generally exceeds 35 mph:
Congestion exists where travel time exceeds 2.40 min. / mile (average speed less than
25 mph).
3. Minor arterial roadways and frontage roads where speed limit is generally 35 mph or less:
Congestion exists where travel time exceeds 3.00 min. / mile (average speed less than
20 mph).
4. Signalized intersections:
Congestion exists where 50% or more of users, experience more than 40 seconds of
stopped time.
Congested Network
The Congested Network is defined as the part of the CAMPO roadway network that meets
the criteria defined above during the peak period. This information is available from the
annually updated Congestion Network Monitoring Report.
CMS Corridor Mobility Plan
The CAMPO Congestion Management System Working Group is in charge of developing
and maintaining the Corridor Mobility Plan that is used to help select projects for the
Transportation Improvement Program and other Capital Improvement Programs. The
Corridor Mobility Plan includes basic project information for proposed improvements to the
transportation network during a six -year period. The Corridor Mobility Plan is updated at
least once every two years.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 5-1 June 12, 2000
Mobility and Air Quality Objectives
A project proposal is eligible to be placed in the Corridor Mobility Plan if it is has been
recommended by a Congestion Management Team (see below) for the purpose of
achieving at least one of the following objectives:
• Reduce trips involving single- occupant vehicles
• Encourage ridesharing, telecommuting, and alternative modes of transportation
• Increase operating efficiency of roadways, freeways, and public transportation
• Decrease the number of congested roadway segments and intersections
• Increase average vehicle occupancy of the public transportation system especially
during peak - period travel times
• Reduce air pollution caused by cars, light trucks, passenger vans, buses, and trucks.
Corridor Mobility Plan Proiect and Program Development and Evaluation
All Corridor Mobility Plan projects and programs are developed and evaluated for
effectiveness in accordance with the CAMPO Congestion Management System Process
Guidelines.
Congestion Management Teams
CAMPO coordinates five teams of inter - agency staff representatives to determine near and
long term congestion management strategies, and to develop and monitor projects and
programs for the CAMPO Congestion Management System:
Commute Solutions Team
The coordinating team for the CAMPO Commute Solutions Program promotes alternatives
to driving in single occupant vehicles, which include carpooling, vanpooling, public transit,
bicycling, walking, implementing alternative work schedules, and telecommuting. Target
audiences for this program include public agencies, the general public, commuters, and
major public and private employers. The program, which began as a CAMPO pilot project in
1994, is aimed at reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality in Central Texas
using various Travel Demand Management strategies. For more information about the
program, contact the CAMPO office at (512) 499 -6051.
Highway Bottleneck Team
The Highway Bottleneck Team includes representatives from the Texas Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, City of Austin Public Works and
Transportation Department, CAMPO, Texas Transportation Institute, and the University of
Texas Center for Transportation Research. Team members develop strategies and projects
to manage and improve traffic conditions on freeway mainianes. They address two types of
traffic congestion: 1) recurring congestion such as rush -hour traffic, and 2) non - recurring
congestion caused by collisions or other freeway incidents. The following freeway
operational improvement strategies are considered:
• Lengthen acceleration lanes on entrance ramps
• Provide supplemental lanes between high volume ramps
• Use entrance ramp controls / peak -hour ramp closures
• Eliminate ramps where appropriate to improve safety or operational efficiency
• Optimize traffic signal timing at frontage road intersections.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 5 -2 June 12, 2000
Freeway Traffic Management and Operations Team
The Freeway Traffic Management and Operations Team oversees the development of the
TxDOT Freeway Traffic Management System, which will be used to improve traffic
conditions along US 183, US 290, SH 71, Loop 1, IH 35, and future freeways in the Austin
metropolitan area. The system will improve freeway corridor monitoring capabilities and
provide system infrastructure for inter - agency coordination, traveler information, advanced
traffic control, and incident management. The system makes use of Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) technology to increase safety and reduce traffic congestion
through enhanced communication capabilities. The Team includes engineers, planners,
administrators, and public safety personnel from TxDOT, Travis County, the City of Austin,
and other organizations. Team members develop strategies and projects to improve safety
and traffic congestion conditions within travel corridors that include freeway mainlanes and
frontage roads. Several members of the Team participate in the development of the
Combined Emergency and Traffic Management Center facility, which is currently being
designed, and the application of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
Downtown Mobility and Arterial Congestion Team
The Downtown Mobility and Arterial Congestion Team develops strategies and projects for
managing traffic congestion in downtown Austin and on major arterial roadways in the
Austin metropolitan area. The Team includes representatives from the City of Austin Public
Works and Transportation Department, CAMPO, the Texas General Services Commission,
TxDOT, the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and downtown business
organizations. They address two types of traffic congestion: 1) recurring congestion such as
rush -hour traffic, and 2) non - recurring congestion caused by special events, construction
work, and other roadway incidents. The following transportation improvement strategies are
considered:
• Monitor and synchronize traffic signals
• Upgrade the City of Austin computerized traffic signal system and install loop detectors
• Modify bus transit routes, increase bus service, and improve bus arrival information
• Create bus priority and /or dedicated bus/vanpool lanes
• Install signal preemption systems and/or queue jumper lanes for buses & emergency
vehicles
• Expand Park and Ride and other intermodal facilities
• Install parking management systems and implement access management techniques
• Adjust one -way and two-way street operations
• Install reversible travel lanes on roadways with high disparities in directional volumes
• Implement Transportation System Management techniques especially at intersections
• Enforce restrictions on commercial vehicle operations
• Encourage major employers to allow workers to use flex -time and to telecommute
• Promote alternative transportation modes (ridesharing, transit, bicycling, walking, etc.)
• Install temporary and permanent lane control signs
• Improve inter - agency and inter - departmental project planning and communications
• Provide traveler information about special events, lane closures, and detour routes.
High Occupancy Vehicle /High Occupancy Toll (HOV /HOT) Facility Operations Team
In 2000, the CMS Working Group expects to form a Congestion Management Team to
recommend low to medium cost projects and programs for the CAMPO Corridor Mobility
Plan. Projects could include bus -only lanes on arterial roadways, support systems for future
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 5 June 12, 2000
toll facilities, ramp and frontage road modifications, congestion pricing, ITS infrastructure,
and rideshare programs that are aimed at improving the operational efficiency and ridership -
attractiveness of HOV /HOT lanes. The purpose of the Team will not be to plan HOV /HOT
lanes, but to recommend improvements that complement HOV /HOT facilities after they are
constructed.
The planned long -term HOV /HOT network in the CAMPO area is shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1
Long -Term HOV /HOT Network
NM Adopted HOV/HOT Lanes
edatr Preserve HOV /HOT Easements
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 5-4
June 12, 2000
6 Bicycle & Pedestrian System
Introduction
Current Level of Bicycling and Walking
The Bicycle- Pedestrian Element describes the federal requirements, current level of
bicycling and walking and actions to increase the levels, and the bicycle and pedestrian
systems. A map of the 2025 Metropolitan Bicycle Route System is included at the end of
this section (see Figure 6.1). CAMPO's policies to encourage bicycling and walking are
included in Chapter 10.
Federal Requirements
TEA 21 requires that MPOs provide for the long -term development and encouragement of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities as viable transportation alternatives. According to TEA 21:
MPOs must "consider bicycle and pedestrian projects, where appropriate, in conjunction
with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where bicycle
and pedestrian use is not permitted."
Bicycling and walking, the two primary nonmotorized transportation choices, contribute a
small fraction of their potential. Between 1 and 3% of area residents commute to work or
school on foot; less than 2% commute by bike. Figure 6.2 shows the level of bicycling and
walking in the metropolitan area since 1990, based on four separate surveys.
Figure 6.2
CAMPO -Area Travel to Work/School
1994 Public 1997 Public 1998
Travel 1990 Opinion Opinion Travel
Mode U.S. Census' Survey Survey Survey
Drive Alone 75% 82% 82% 84%
Carpool /Vanpool 14% 4% 6% 11%
Bus 3% 9% 7% 2%
Walk 3% 3% 3% 1%
Bike 1% 2% 1% .5%
Other 4% — 1% 1.5%
Area surveyed and purpose of trip:
' Georgetown to Kyle, travel to work
2 CAMPO study area, travel to work or school
3 CAMPO study area, travel to work or school
4 Williamson, Travis and Hays Counties, travel to work
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 6 -1
June 12, 2000
Increasing the Level of Bicycling and Walking
Research by the U.S. Department of Transportation indicates that bicycle and pedestrian
commuting could be increased if adequate facilities were available. Increasing the level of
biking and walking would reduce motor vehicle trips that, in turn, would reduce traffic
congestion and air pollution. Bicycle and pedestrian travel is an inexpensive,
environmentally - sound, and healthy transportation alternative for short trips to work, school,
shopping, recreational facilities and neighborhood destinations.
CAMPO's 1997 public opinion survey showed that 1% of those surveyed bicycle to work or
school during rush hour. However, 27% stated that they would consider bicycling if the
conditions were right for them. Twenty -seven percent of respondents also said that
showers, lockers and safe bike storage at work would affect their commuting choice. Figure
6.3 shows a list of actions that would encourage biking and walking and increase the level of
use.
Bicycle System
Figure 6.3
Actions to Increase Bicycling and Walking
Actions to Increase Bicycling and Walking
1. More and/or better bike lanes and sidewalks
2. Maps of safe routes; route choice assistance
3. Showers and lockers at worksite
4. Secure bicycle parking /storage
5. Eliminate barriers
Sources: TDM Tool Kit, Association for Commuter Transportation, 1998
CAMPO Public Opinion Survey, 1997
FHWA Design Bicyclist
Bike facilities need to accommodate both experienced and less experienced riders. FHWA
suggests that bicyclists generally fit in one of three categories: Group A— Advanced
Bicyclists, Group B —Basic Bicyclists, or Group C-- Children. Figure 6.4 illustrates FHWA's
"design bicyclist" concept and lists the characteristics of each group.
Generally, Group A cyclists are best served by designing all roadways to accommodate
shared use by bicycles and motor vehicles. Group B and C bicyclists are best served by a
network of neighborhood streets and designated bicycle facilities. Given these two types of
design bicyclists, FHWA offers a two-tiered design approach to meet their needs:
1. Group A riders are best served by making every street "bicycle- friendly."
2. Group B and C riders are best served by identifying key travel corridors (typically served
by arterial and collector streets) and by providing designated bicycle facilities on
selected routes through these corridors.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 6 -2 June 12, 2000
Figure 6.4
FHWA Design Bicyclist
Group A — Advanced Bicyclists
• Experienced riders
• They prefer:
Direct access to destinations
Maximum speed with minimum delays
- Sufficient operating space to share roadways
with motor vehicles
Group B — Basic Bicyclists
• Casual riders, new riders, teenage riders
• They prefer:
Comfortable access to destinations
via direct routes
Well- defined separation from motor
vehicles
Group C — Children
• Pre -teen riders
• They prefer:
- Access to key neighborhood destinations
- Streets with low speed limits and traffic volumes
- Well- defined separation from motor vehicles
Source: Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, FHWA, January 1994
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 6 - 3 June 12, 2000
2025 Metropolitan Bike Route System Map
Figure 6.1 shows the planned, regionally significant, on -road bike route system for the
CAMPO region through the year 2025. Bike routes are also cited in the 2025 Roadway Plan
table (see Figure 7.1): a column in the table identifies roads in the 2025 Roadway Plan that
are part of the regional bike route system.
The map shows a continuous network of regionally significant bicycle routes in public road
rights -of -way. Regionally significant routes are routes that move bicycle traffic within and
through the urban area. Right -of -way preservation is a key component of a strong
transportation plan, and the construction of bikeways on existing and planned roadways
depends on sufficient rights -of -way. The 2025 Metropolitan Bicycle Route System Map
should be used as a guide to preserving corridors for the regional bikeway system.
The regional system includes routes on collector streets, arterials, and state highways, with
two caveats:
1. Only experienced cyclists should use bikeways on state highway frontage roads and
major arterials with high speeds and high- traffic volumes.
2. Inclusion of bicycle facilities on state highway frontage roads is subject to final design
determination, in consultation with local governments, in the design phase.
Bicycle facilities can be bike lanes, bike paths, bikeways or shared roadways (each of these
terms is defined in the Glossary, Chapter 11). The map does not specify the type of bike
facility that should be provided on each roadway —each member jurisdiction should be
allowed to select the facilities that best serve its users. CAMPO encourages its member
jurisdictions to use FHWA's Selecting Roadway Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles as a
guide for selecting the appropriate facility on each roadway.
To achieve a coordinated, integrated and safe transportation system for cyclists, CAMPO
encourages its member jurisdictions to design, construct and maintain all bicycle, pedestrian
and trail facilities in accordance with federal design guidelines. CAMPO encourages its
member jurisdictions to adopt the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as the
design criteria for accommodating bicycles on roadways.
Pedestrian System
All of us are pedestrians. Virtually all trips at one point or another include a pedestrian
element. It could be as little as walking from the front door to the car in the driveway and
from the parking place to the office. For others it could be a 5 -mile walk from home to
school or work. For most of us, though, it's running errands to nearby businesses at lunch
or after work, or walking to a bus stop or a shopping center near home.
In a national study, FHWA listed the major factors that affect an individual's decision to
bicycle or walk. Table 6.5 lists the factors specific to walking.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 6-4 June 12, 2000
Figure 6.5
Factors That Influence Walking
Factors Specific to Walking
1. Distance and travel time
2. Climate and topography
3. Presence of sidewalks
4. Traffic signals and pedestrian crossings
5. Availability of services (for errands, shopping)
6. Street lighting
7. Attractive places to walk
Source: The National Bicycling and Walking Study FHWA, 1994
Pedestrians, like bicyclists, vary widely in their abilities. It's important that the pedestrian
system meet not only the needs of the average pedestrian, but also the needs of the elderly,
the young, the poor and the people with disabilities.
To promote walking as a viable transportation choice, CAMPO encourages its member
jurisdictions to:
1. Design safe sidewalks and comfortable pedestrian environments, and
2. Require new developments to provide sidewalks with direct connections to residential,
commercial and recreational areas, and to transit stops.
It is clearly the intent of TEA -21 that all new and improved transportation facilities be
planned, designed and constructed to safely accommodate pedestrians. All roadways not
legally prohibiting pedestrians should be designed with sidewalks in order to achieve a
balanced multi -modal transportation system.
Finally, we must encourage people to walk instead of drive, where feasible. Walking must
be made as convenient as possible in order to substitute for driving. That means
pedestrian- friendly amenities must be fully incorporated into all aspects of urban design in
the short run. In the long run, it means emphasizing compact land use and development.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
6 -5 June 12, 2000
This page intentionally blank
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 6 June 12, 2000
■
Blanco County
•
Burnet County
Hays County
Williamson
County
Caldwell N
County �♦
Figure 6.1
CAMPO
2025 Metropolitan
Bicycle Route System
Bastrop County
CAMPO Bikeway Plan
CAMPO Roadway Plan
County Lines
CAMPO Boundary
Lakes
Thls map Illustrates regional bike routes for
experienced cyclists. CAMPO assumes no liability
for bicyclists travelling on these routes. Blcydlots
assume a risk on these routes identical to the nsks
assumed on all other roadways.
Plotted: June 30, 2000
6 -7
7 Roadway System •
Roadway System Considerations
As population growth and increased travel demand continues to place a higher burden on
area roadways, it is imperative that many single- occupant vehicle trips be shifted to other
modes such as transit, ridesharing, bicycling, and walking, especially during the peak travel
periods. As the cost of constructing and maintaining roadway facilities increases, it will
become more difficult for government agencies to provide sufficient funds to satisfy
travelers' demands for added capacity and new roadways.
Given these constraints, the roadway element of the CAMPO 2025 Plan is designed to
provide a reasonable level -of- service for all vehicular travel in and through the Austin
metropolitan area, and provide a safe and efficient driving environment. In developing this
system, many local and regional influences were considered. Existing and future land use
and transportation facilities are critical factors in forecasting future travel demand.
Employing the results of the CAMPO travel survey, the future travel demand for the years
2007, 2015 and 2025 have been estimated in order to develop a recommended
transportation system for those years. Refer to the 2025 Roadway Plan Table (Figure 7.1)
and the 2025 Roadway Plan Map (Figure 7.2) at the end of this chapter. Roadway
recommendations are shown for 2025 assuming a fiscal constraint as well as a 2025
roadway "need" which is shown for information purposes.
In the 2025 Roadway Plan Table each roadway and roadway segment is listed beginning
with the State highway system. Column 3 shows the existing roadway size as of 1997.
Column 4 shows all roadway expansion projects for which funding is currently committed.
Column 5 shows the adopted 2025 roadway sizes based on fiscal constraint and social
impact feasibility. Column 6 shows the 2025 "needed" roadway sizes based only on pure
transportation modeling demand, without consideration of fiscal constraint or social and
environmental impacts. Columns 7 and 8 show areas of natural environmental and
environmental justice (minority, low income) sensitivity, respectively, as described in
Chapter 3, Environmental and Community Impacts. Column 9 shows roads in the Roadway
Plan which are part of the regional bike route system, as described in Chapter 6, Bicycle &
Pedestrian System. Column 10 shows remarks with specifications or characteristics of each
roadway segment. Column 11 provides a project identification number so that projects can
be linked to the Transportation Improvement Program.
Additional factors considered while developing the recommended roadway system include
the impact of freight traffic (see Chapter 8), impacts to neighborhoods, environmental
impacts, fiscal constraints, and increasing levels of congestion.
Impacts to Neighborhoods
The CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) in 1994 stated its intent to not damage inner
city neighborhoods by widening roadways (also see The Vision in Chapter 1). Therefore the
proposed roadway system attempts to minimize the expansion of arterials within existing
urbanized areas, especially residential areas. A CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan goal is
to increase person carrying capacity rather than motor vehicle capacity.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 7 -1 June 12, 2000
Environmental Sensitivitv
The natural environmental sensitivity of the area through which each roadway passes is
indicated by high, medium and low sensitivity (2025 Roadway Plan Table, Figure 7.1). The
criteria for sensitivity and potential mitigation actions are described in Chapter 3, Figure 3.5.
Environmental Justice Sensitivity
The sensitivity of the areas through which each roadway passes for minority and low income
populations is also indicated in Figure 7.1. Please see Chapter 3 for a full discussion.
Financially Constrained Plan
ISTEA and TEA 21 require that the adopted transportation system be constrained by
"reasonably" available financial resources over the life of the Plan. The roadway
improvements shown in column 4 of the 2025 Roadway Plan Table (Figure 7.1) and the
2025 Roadway Plan Map (Figure 7.2) illustrate the financially constrained system.
TEA 21 allows for the inclusion of a needed roadway list in the plan which is comprised of
needed roadway improvements where funding has not been identified. Depending on future
developmental patterns or needs, these roadway projects may be moved into the financially
constrained list of roadway projects if sufficient funding becomes available or if an
equivalent amount of roadway improvements have been removed from the plan. The Needs
List is contained in column 5 of the 2025 Roadway Plan Table, Figure 7.1.
Corridor Preservation
Corridor (right -of -way) preservation is a key component to a strong transportation plan, and
the construction of future roadways or increasing capacity on existing roadways depends on
the provision of sufficient right -of -way. The 2025 Roadway Plan Table (Figure 7.1, column
9, remarks) should be used as a guide to preserve right -of -way throughout the Austin
metropolitan area.
Roadway Plan
Figures 7.1 and 7.2 identify roadways that are regionally significant from the standpoint of
moving traffic within and through the urban area. Roadways are classified according to the
relative importance of the movement and access -to- property functions they perform. As the
importance of the movement function increases, the access function decreases and vice
versa. For example, freeways perform the function of moving large traffic volumes at high
speeds with no access to adjoining property, while residential local streets provide access to
homes at low speeds and low traffic volumes.
The roadways identified in the CAMPO 2025 Plan consist of:
• Freeway (FWY) - Fully access controlled roadways with grade separation at
interchanges. Ramp movements on and off the facility are accomplished by ramps
connecting to frontage roads. Access points are limited to major facility crossings.
• Parkway (PKY) - Through travel lanes are similar in characteristics to Freeways, but
continuous frontage roads are not normally provided. Access is provided by grade
separated interchanges and ramps at major crossings. Whenever possible, landscape
treatments and scenic easements are provided.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
7 -2 June 12, 2000
• Expressway (EXPY) - High volume, high capacity roadways with widely spaced at -grade
signalized intersections. Little or no direct access from frontage development or local
roads along the facility with right turns in and out when access is available. Major street
crossings are grade separated.
• Toll Road (TOLL) —Toll roads are freeways or parkways on which the user pays to drive
on the facility. Tolling roads is one option to build major roadway projects sooner than
with tax funds. The user fees are collected and used to pay the bonds issued for the
construction of the roadway. Automated toll collection has greatly reduced the
inconvenience for the roadway user. The planned tollroad projects in the CAMPO area
are shown in Figure 7.3.
Maior Divided Arterial (MAD) - High volume surface roadways with high priority at
intersections with all lower level facilities. Typically, signalization is provided at
significant crossings. Flush, depressed or raised center median with left turn storage.
• Maior Undivided Arterial (MAU) - Similar to Major Divided Arterials, but with no center
median, normally due to right -of -way limitations. Limited left tum channelization at key
crossing is provided wherever possible.
Minor Arterial (MNR) - Secondary facility to meet local access and circulation
requirements in addition to providing through movement. Typically, full movement
access (left and right turns) is permitted along the route. Low priority is given at
significant intersections.
Hiah- Occupancy Vehicle /High -Occupancy Toll Lane (HOV /HOT) - An alternative to
widening major freeway facilities for general purpose travel, high - occupancy vehicle and
high - occupancy toll (HOV /HOT) facilities are recommended for many of these routes to
encourage higher vehicle occupancies and increase the person - carrying capacity of
such corridors. Consideration of HOV lanes on these roadways should be given priority .
to encourage ridesharing and transit ridership, rather than encouraging additional single -
occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel.
Travel Demand Modeling
Travel demand modeling consists of four sequential steps: trip generation, trip distribution,
mode choice, and traffic assignment. Trip generation estimates the number of trips being
"produced" at the home -end and "attracted" at the employment, shopping, school, or other
trip ends. Those trips (productions and attractions) are estimated for all 1074 traffic serial
zones (TSZ). Trip distribution estimates the interchange of trips between /among TSZs using
the Gravity model based on the attractions of zones in their employment or other land use
activities and the impedance (travel times). Mode choice differentiates the modes (drive -
alone, carpool, bus, light rail, walk, bike) to be used by users (residents or employees).
Traffic assignment calculates the individual travel demand onto the roadway, transit, and
other modal networks based on the equilibrium, toll, time penalties, and speeds. Traffic
assignment reveals how much traffic or travel demand is loaded onto the networks. The
assignment results usually get the most attention in travel demand modeling because the
volumes and congestion levels are shown in an easily understood form. Assignment results
are also the primary basis for planners and engineers to recommend the future network
improvements (lane capacities for roadways and headway (transit vehicle frequency) for
transit).
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 7 - 3 June 12, 2000
Development and Modeling of Alternative Roadway Networks
The review process is to apply a quantitative method to identify the future transportation
improvement projects to be included for travel demand modeling in the three horizon years
(2007, 2015, and 2025) and to recommend transportation projects for the draft CAMPO
2025 Transportation Plan. The quantitative method is based on evaluation of the modeling
results between the 2007 existing plus committed (E +C) network and future alternative
networks in 2015 and 2025, as well as projected funding availability. Potential funding
sources include federal, state, tolls, sales tax and other local funds.
Each model run is reviewed as a basis of proposing improvements in the successive run.
The modeling process began with the existing plus committed (E +C) network. The E +C
network includes the existing roadways plus the financially committed projects by the year
2007. The staff evaluated the performance of the E +C network in terms of traffic volumes
and congestion, continuity and connectivity of roadways for addressing the future travel
demand. New transportation projects were suggested based on the deficiencies shown in
the modeling results to be tested in a proposed 2015 roadway network. This iterative and
incremental process continued until the 2025 fiscally constrained and "2025 needs"
networks were developed. The "2025 needs" network is defined as the total roadway
capacity needed to meet travel demand without any consideration of funding,
environmental /natural constraints, and or social impact constraints. The "2025 needs"
scenario is provided for illustrative purpose, and is not recommended for adoption.
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 7-4 June 12, 2000
Figure 7.1 1
2025 Roadway Plan Table I Existing
1997
Roadway Segment ■
1 2 3
'
By2007
4
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Project ID t
Adopted
2025 202
Plan Needs
5 6
on
city
7
Area
Envfron
Justke
Sensitivity
8
Metro ,1 ,.
Bike Remarks
Route
System ;
9 i 10
I - --- - 1CR111-
'--
Natl_o_rwlHlghwa Y_stem i EM
_ _ __
--
- 4
1
FM3406 - --- IFIFWWY
FWY6
FWY 6_nyea
FVrve /t
FWY a/t
I ---- -- - - - ----
_-
2_.
3406= RM 620--_- - _ - --- -- --
0- SH45(N2
,FVJV6
�6
FWY
FWY 6
FWY 6
FWY 6/140V
FWY 6 /HOVnwart
FWY6 /HOV
_
4
. __ -- -- - - ,.�_- - --
__
..__ —_ _ - ----_.
SH 45 P arnerin
i Pormer Ln. - Rundberg Ln. -- _
Rundberg Ln. - US 183 (N)
FWY 6 /HOV
FWY 6Jt
FM' 8/H_
FWY 6 /HOV
T VS183(N)- U 290( FWY8
FWY8 /HOVnv
_LUS 290 (E ) .51s1St. FWY8
FWY 8IHOV wnfOnav
FWY 8 /HOV
FWY 6 /CD 41nw
wn ronlov
8/CD 4
. '
51st St. - MLK Blvd. FWY 8
1MLK Blvd. - 15th St. FWV 8
y
CD = collector - distributors.
TEX- 35- 10
15th - 61hSf
St . . � FWY6
FWY
_ _
,
TD(- 35- 11
- _,___-- __ -_ -_ ____
- -
- .. ,•- _ _
_ . _ .
61hSt. -Cesar Chavez FWY6
Cesar Chavez - US 290 ( - -- - - -- FWY 6
FWY
wx 10810V
LOW
v -
TEX- 35• 12
FWY 8 /HOV
--
TEX- 35- 18
TEX- 35- 14
TEX- 35- 15.
TEX- 35- 16
290 LW) - Wiliam Cannon Dr. F1/YY 6
William Cannon Dr, - Slaughter Ln FWY 6
FWY 8 /HOV
FWY BLHgV
FWY 8
89 V
FWY 8nl0V
rwYenwv
LOW
LOW
V
Slaughter Ln. - FM 1626
].4 6
FWY6 I
FWY 6
LOW
_- _ --__-„ _ ._. --- 1FM 1626 -FM 1$21_ __
+ FM 131327 - 314 Mlles South of Y�rinaton Road
FWY 8
Existing
FWY aMOV
FWY B
LOW
TEX- 35
TD(- 35- 18
LOW
BR IH 3$(1Aays Avenues
FM 3406 - Bnrshy Creek
Bnnhy_Creek - Lake Creek
MAD 4
MAD 4
Exlstina
Existi�
LOW
LOW
B
--
TEX- 81135. 1
AD(- BR35- 2
TD(- 8935.3
(Round Rocl�
Lake Cleels- IH 35 L)
MAU 4
-•«'tl•
Exkii�
LOW
US 79 35AI) - BR IH 35
MAD 6
ExIsjfl 1
MAD 6
MAD 8
MAD 8
LOW
LOW
LOW
B
B
B
TEX- 79 1
TEX- 79- 2
TEX- 79- 3
Naljopol HIAhwaay_SLstem
BR IH 35 - FM 1460
MAD 4
FM.1_460_CR 122
MAU 4
MAD
MAD 6
US 183
Study Boundary - FM 2243
MAU 4
MAU 4
MAD 6
MAD 6
LOW
LOW
TEX- 183- 1
TEX- 183- 2_
National Hghwgv Sy tem
FM 2243 - Block House Creek
Block House Creek - New Hgp_e Dr.
MAD 4
MAD 6
LOW
TEX- 183- 2
TEX- 183- 4
TEX- 183- 5
TEX- 183- 6
New Hope Dr. - FM1431
MAD4
MAD 4
_MAD 6
MAD 6
MAD8
MAD 8
LOW
LOW
-
FM 1431 - Brushy Creek Rd,
Brushy Creek Rd. - Lakellne Blvd.
MAD 4
MAD 6
MAD 8
LOW
LokellneBlvd,_ RM 620
RM 620- Travis County Une
MAD4
MAD 6
FWY6 FWY6 /HOV
FWY 6 FWY 6 /HOV
MY 81110V
nwerFtov
LOW
LOW
TEX_- 1@3- Z.
TEX- 183- 8
Travis_c4(lnty Une - Braker Ln.
MAD6
FWY6
FWY 6
MAD6
FW 6 FWY6 /HOV
FP/Y6 FWY6 /HOV
FWY 6 Existing
FWY 6 FWY 6
nwenrov
FWY 8/}40V
FWY 8
FWY8
LOW
TEX- 183_9
TEX- 18>_10
TEX- 183- 11
TEX- 183- 12
BrokerLn. -Loop1
Loop 1 - IH 35 (N)
LOW
LOW
LOW
+
v
IH 35 (N) - US 290 (E)
US 290 (E) - E. 7th St.
MAD 6
FWY 6
FWY 8
LOW
v
TEX- 183- 13
E. 7th St. - Colorado River
MAD 6
FWY 8 FWY 8
LOW
v
TEX- 183- 14
Colorado River - SH71(E)
MAD 6
MAD4
MAD 4
MAU 4
-' FWY8
MI 6
FWY_O
FWY 6
LOW
LOW
LOW
v
iD(- 183- 15
TEX- 183- 16
TEX- 183- 17
TEX- 183- 18
SH 71 (6) - Onion Creek
Onion Creek - FM 812
FM 812 - FM 973
LOW
FM 973 -SH 130 (5)
MAU 4
FWY 6
LOW
TEX- 183- 19
SH 130 (S) - Study Boundary(SE)
MAU 4
Tot FWY 6
LOW
Continuation o1511130subject to final
TEX- 183 - 20
alignment determination
US 183 (A) (MIS) 1
US 183 (N) - FM 2243
—
To. nw4 Toll PXY 6
LOW
8
Candidate toll rood, noncontiguous
TEX- 183A- 1
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
75
Adopted June 12, 2000
Printed on 8/30100
Figure 7.1
21175 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway Segment
1 2
I
Existing k o•—••
1997 'BY 2007
I
3 i 4
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Project DJ 1
11
1
Adopted
2025
Plan
5
Area
Area Environ
2025 1 Environ Justke
Needs I Sensitivity senda.xy
, 6 7 8
Metro
Bike 1 Remarks
Route
System
9 10
- ____ - - --
_ EM 2243 - New Hope Dr.
—
ca ne.
Toll PKy
LOW
B
frontage roads where required, RUW ofi r FWYS
TEX- 183A- 2
TNew Hope Dr. - FM 1431
—
RA ne
Ta nn.
ra rwv.
Toll PKY 6
Toll PKY 6
Toll FWY 6
I.
FWY emov
LOW
L W
LOW
B
TEX- 183A- 3
JfX 183A- 4
TEX- MA- 5
FM 1431 - Brushy Creek
—
B
Brushy Creek - US 183 (S)
—
B
WEI FWY 6
US 290
IH 35(N)- Cameron Rd.
FWY 4
LOW
.. B
TEX- 290E- 1
TEX- 290E - 2
TEX- 290E- 3
Cameron Rd. - US 183_0_0
US 183 (N)- Springdale Rd.
FWY 4
MAD 4
12373 FWY 6
FWY 6
FWV 6IHOV
LOW
LOW
• B
8
Rd. - Giles Rd.
MAD 4
FWY 6
LOW
+ B
TE(- 290E- 4
TEX- 290E- 5
_
GIIes Rte_- FM3177
MAD
FWY6
6
EXP 6
S
FWY 6
•W
LOW
B
FM 3177 - FM 97_3_
u • D •
B
TEX- 290E- 6
TEX_ 290E - 7
- ______________
FM 973 _Study_Boundar1(E)___
MAD 4
LOW
B
' eserve UW for 1-WY 6
U_S 29a_ 1A�_.—__.___ Boundary 0W)- Fltzhugh Rd.
AU 4
6
MED
B
TEX- 290W- 1
. _
Fllzhuoil Rd. - FM 1826
MAID 4
ED
MED
B
2•(1W_2
TEX- 290W_ I
_ __— _-- _____ _—
_EMM1826 -SH71
MAD 4
_.0
�FWY6
B
_TEX
NJ)
SH 71-WIIIam Cannon Dr
MAD4
FWY6
MED
nc u• eseWct connectors at SH 71
TEX_ 290W-4
William Cannon Dr. - Loop 1
MAD 4 -
FWY 6 6
FWY 6 FWY 6
FWY t
MED
MED
nc odes direct connectors at Loop I
TEX_ 29 W_r�
TEX- 290W -6
TEX- 290W- 7
TEX- 290W-B
Loop 1 - West Gate Blvd.
MAD 6
West Gate Blvd. - Loop 360
MAD 6
FWY 6 FWY 6
FWY 6 F •
FWY 8
FWY8
LOW
LOW
M—
(9en_WIlke
LoogA60- Manchqcg_RS1.
An •
Ben Whtte, Blvd)
Manchaca Rd. - S. Congress Ave.
MAD6
FWY6 FWY6
FWY 6 FWY 6
r••••••• Toll FWY 6
Ta P.. T oll FWY •
Toll FWY 6
FWY8
FWY 8
�
LOW
LOW
HIGH
H G1d
HIGH
TEX- 290W -9
TEX�QOW_ZO
(Ben White Blvd)
S. Congress Ave. - IH 35.(a)
MAD 6
SH 45 (N)
derson Mill - US 183__(N)
��
B
See (tNI 621)
Candidate foil road
andldate toil rr55
Candidate toll road, also Loop 1
1EX_ 45N_ 1—
TEX- 45N- 2
TEX- 45N- 3
11S 183 (N) - RM 620
MAU 4
RM 620 - FM 1325 /Loop 1
—
FM 1325 /Loop 1 - IH 35 (N)
MAU 4
IH 35 (N) - Greenlown Blvd.
uAD
0IIFWY6
MED
B
an• .• e o roa.
TEX- 45N- 4
Greenlawn Blvd. - Pfiuger Ln. /Pflugervllle Loo •
MAD 4
Toll FWY •
raw... TO a FWY 6
MED
MED
8
IME
Candidate toll road
°ndidae toll road
•epen.an upon ' e na a gnmen c >f osen
TEX- 45N- 5
.7E). n5N- 6_
TEX- 45N- 7
Pfluaer Ln. /PEugeMlle Loop - SH 130_(N)
MADAL0
(Wilke LnLKely In)
SH 13Q4) -FM 685
MNR. 0
MAIM MAD4
MAD 4
MED
MED
(1M Ike Ln1Key LO)
FM 685 to Kelly in
—
'an a e 9 Way
TEX- 451,_1-_13_
�
EM
HIGH
MED
MED
==
SH 45 (S)_
FM 1826 - Logo 1
MAD 4
TEX- 45S_ 1
TEX= 455• 2
Loop 1 - FM 1626
—
MEM
FM 1626 -II-135
—
Toll PKY 6
Toil PKY 6
g
g
Evalu°Te as a candidate toll road- non-
con�t_roontoge .L•5sthere required
subject to alignment study. Avoid FM 1327 and
eJ6sling oLoo1Bsjt_Pro£en!5 Low (QOM 6
TEX- 45S- 3
IH 35 - US 183
—
TEX 45S- _4
SH71(E)
IH35(S)- Pleasant Valley Rd.
MAD 6
FWY 6 FWY 6
FWY LOW
•
TEX- 71E- 1
Pleasant Valley Rd. - Riverside Dr.
MAD 6
I FWY 6
FWY LOW
+
TEX- 71E- 2
Riverside Dr. - US 183 (S)
MAD 6
FWY 6
FWY LOW
B
TEX- 71E- 3
US 183(5)- Ave. F (Bergstrom Airport)
MAD 4
FWY 6
FWY
LOW
+ 8
TEX- 71E- 4_
Ave. F (Bergstrom Airport) - FM 973
MAD 4
FWY 6
FWV6
FWY
FWY
LOW
B
TEX- 71E- 5
TEX- 71E- 6
FM 97 - Stu• Bound°
-D
LOW
B
SH 71 (W)
Study Boundary (W) - FM 3238
MAU 4
Existing_
MAD6
MAD 4
MAD8
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
0
'reserve •'r or 7 AD 4
TEX- 71W- 1
FM3238 -RM620
MAD4
8
B
'reserveRO __ _ WtorM__A_U__8_ ____ __TEX,
71W -_2
TEX- 71 W- 3
11M 620 -10M 2244
MAU 4
MAD 4 FWY 6
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
Adopted June 12, 2000
7-6
Printed on 6/30/00
_"___ -__ . RM 2244 - US 290 1A(H_
MAU 4 l FWY6
HIGH
B
TEX- 71W- 4
r a
roi
ra
rarxre
ras rxve
t oo .cv ee
Tofl PKY 6
Toll MY 6
a�a •aaaaa�
MED
io goo oo �oolo
1 - —
" - - --
1p(- 130. 1
TD(- 130- 2
SH 130 CR 111 - US 79
INININI
Arai
12■1=Z3
tMI1=71
f
— =13
-
Aaoatred both alternative alignments as shown on
Figure Po cry FT7. Su bleclToli ial -
determination. alignment detenation. Candidate toll rood. frontage
where required, preserveROWToF FM' 6:
__ - _
_
National Highway System 9=CR 168 /Goths School Rd.
NIMI
�r oacds
� =
r _-
CR 168 /GsittIs SSgot Rd. - Pfl ..r in
page Ln.- PfiugervllleRd.
TEX 120:• 3
130.4
TEX- 130- 5 _
TEX- 130- 6
Rd. -Wells Branch Pkwy. /Howard Ln
Wells Branch Pkwy. /Howard Ln. - Partner L
_Pflu9ervIlle
Parmer Ln. - Sa4nadale Rd.
• ..
TEX- 130- 7
_.TSorinade�
S (E)
oll. U290
US 290 (E) - SH 71 (E)
EZl1
H 71 (S 183 (S)
TE( 130- 8
•
' ' '
TEX- 130- 9
TEX- 130- 10
_ ______
j US 183 (S) - Study Boundary (S)
MED
B
See US 183; candidate toll road.
frontage roads where required, preserve ROW
TEX- 130- 11
Loop 1 (M OPAC Blvd)_" -
j
SH 45 (N_E touter Ln.
MI
I'
■
a. •
m
• A
%� 111 II1IB
i g
'
`
FWY 6 HOV FWY 8/HOV
PWY6 HOV Fvn8IHOv
PWY6LHOV
PWY 6 HOV FW8/HOV
6LHOV FWi8 /HOY
FWy6LHOV fWY8 /HOV
FWy6 /HOV Fwverxov
li if i n
xx
� o, = =10001 =O�o10
4 x
O 00
Ste FM 1925: non - guous lean - age roa'3s.
Tp(- 1- 1
TEX- 1- 2
Partner Ln. - Bu met
MED
MED
1GLi
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
W
N
MIN
111M
B
.- ---- ---- "_ - ----
__
_1
_U
+ Burnet Rd. - FM 1325LBrakr7_r Ln. - ----
FM 1328/Broker ln. - US 1831N)
_ -
MC- 1- 3
- - - " --
q _
Tp( 1.
7E(_ 1- 6
_
US 183� _ S vck Ave.
Steck Ave. -Sp owood 5 5 p r k a R..
HOV Includes tour special use lanes. -- _IE'X_1
-
8
5
� --
I Splcewoodpdnn s Rd. - Far West Blvd.
Far West Blvd. - RM 2222
TEX- 1-
.8
TEX- 1- 0
TEX- 1- 9
TEX- 1 - 1Q
TEX- 1 - 12
TES 1 13
• 2712_ Cesar Chavez - -_ -__-
or Chaven Lake
Town Lake - RM 2244
RM /44 Loop/60
Loofa 360 - US 290 (W)
Rpm IncIUdest our special useandevevaluate
extension of HOV lanes to central business
-
ncu•es • rec tarmac as o •op r•'r
_
- +.r to - William Cannon Dr. MAD • FWY 4
FWy6 HOV HIGH
MIMI
TEX- 1- 14
William anon Dr. - Siauohter Ln.
4
a . ■
MI
IXIEFAI_
P 6 OV
PKY .
Istlna
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
MINI
NINNI
B
Frontage roads where required, preserve ROW for FWY 6
Front • r e roads where required, preserve ROW for FWY 6
TES 1- 13
TEX- 1- 16
S_louahter Ln. - SH 45 (3)
IH 35 (S) - FM 967
La=g 4_ -
MAD 4
'reserve 12UW for MAU 4
TEXT 4_ 1
FM 967 - Ij_35 (Sy
MEM
MAD 6
MAD 4
MAD 4
Existing MAD 4 LOW
Exlstfn • -_ u D
EXP 6 FWY 6 HIGH
EXP 6
8
MIN
I'
mm
Preserve ROW roFMADa
Mt- q_ 2
.
LOO�360
Loop 1 - US 183 LN) (Capitol of Texas H • hw• N
` On • • e highway - --
TEX_ 360- 1
US 183 (N) _FM 2222
•reservel/OWTorFWY 6 - - --
�_� 2
TT� =3p 4
TEX- 360- 5
TEX- 360- 6
TEX- 360- 7
M 2222
F - Loke Austin Blvd.
--
a
Lake Austin BNd. - FM 2244 MAD 4
FM 22_44 - Westlake Dr. MAD 4
EXP 6 6 HIGH
EXP • GH
B
Westlake Dr, - Wals�rlton Ln.
MAD 4 f'
MAD 4
EXP 6 FWY 6 HIGH
EXP • FWY 6 HIGH
B
B
Walsh Tarlton Ln. - US 290 (W)
FM 685
Study bound.p CR 168 /Gatos School Rd. MA 4
MAD 6
LOW
L W
=III
=
B
B
TEX- 685- 1
CR 1_08LGattls School Rd. - SH 45 MAU 4
MAD 6
TEX- 685- 2
SH 45 - P ivaeMllgRd. 1MAU 4
MAD 6 LOW
B
TEX: 685_3
0
0
B
B
B
EM 734 /Pormer n
Study Boundary - FM 2243 1
MAD 6
_
HIGH
HI H
HIGH
HIGH
TEX- 734- 1
Boyce Ln.
FM 2243 - CR.27.2
-
MAD 6
_IHIGf1
TEX 734 - _2 - _
TEX- 734- 3
T�7 3 3 4- 5
Cg272 - New Hope
-
-
MAD 4
MAD 6
MAD6
EXP 6
FWY 6
N 9pe -FM 1431
FM 1431 - Brushy Creek
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway
1
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
Segment
2
CAMPO Roadway Table
Existin g
1997
3
..Adopted
By 2007 2025 ■ 202
Plan Needs
4 , S 6
77
Area
Area Eniron
Environ Justice
Sensitivity semrdNq
7 8
CAMPO2025 Plan
Metro
Bike
Route
System
9
Remarks
10
Adopted June 12, 2000
Printed on 6/30/00
Project m 3
11
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Tabk
Roadway Segment
1 2
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Project 1D
11
I Existing
1997
3
csr.,
5y2007
4
Adopted I
2025 1 2025
Plan i Needs
5 i 6
I Area
Environ
Sensitivity
7
Area
Envlron
Justke
8404471h
8
Metro
Bike Remarks
Route i
Sy em
10
;Brushy Creek - RM 620 MAD 4
EXP 6
FWy 6
HIGH
HIGH
MED
__H___
TEX_ 734 - 6
X" 34
7 —Z.-
TEX- 734 8
BM_...
.- -- --- _ - - -- - -- RM 620 H35 ( N - --- -- --. -- - --- -- MAD.4.
(N Loop -1H 95 (N) MAD 6
—
EXP 6 - - --
MAD 8
FWY6
FNN 8
-r —
__________ J1H 35 (N) - Heathelwllde BNd. MAD 4
EXP 6
FWy 6
FWy 6
LOW
LOW
__MX-
134 9_
TEX_ 734_ 10
�Ie atherwllde Blvd. - Dessau Rd MAD 4
EXP 6
DQssou Rd. SH 130 MAD4rrmOO
MAD4
EXP 6
FWL6
LOW
TEX- 734- 11
734- •13
_ _ SH 130 - Harris Brpnc11P -kw�, MNR
MAD 4
EXP 6
FWY 6 LAW
FWy_6 *LOW
, LQW
kwy
Branch P - US 290_0 MNR 2 0
MAD41EXP
6
-
Non state roadway
TEX-
TEX- 734- 14
_Harris
(Boyce Ln.) US 2_91(3 E]_ FM 973
—
MAD 4
—
FM 812 .__ . _ v _ US 1 aim _ F M 973
MAJ14
Existing
MAD 4
LOW
eserve or D
Preserve ROW Tor MAD 4
TEX- 812_ 4
J_ 812_ 2
FM 973 - Study Bound_ (SE)_
MAU 2
Existin •
MAD 4
LOW
FM 967 Study Boundary (SW) - RRbv Ranch Rd.
MNR 2
MAU 2
MAD 4
MAD 4
HIGH
HJC�H
B
Preserve ROW for MAU 4
TEX. 967_
TEX- 967_ 2
_ _ — _ — . Ruby Ranch Rd, FM 1626
NR 2
MAU 2
B
B
PreserveROW for 1VIATS4
FM 1626 - Loop 4
MNR 2
Willa
MAD 4
HIGH
WO19rve ROW IV1AO X
TEX- 967 =3
LOW
FM 969 /MLK Blvd. i Lo mpr Blvd - Nueces ST.
MAU 2
Existing
TEX- 969- 1
N ueces ST. - Gu4ddlupe St_
MAU 4
EA, .
LOW
TEX- 969 2
TEX- 969- 3
C3uatlalupe St. - Red River ST.
MAU 4
Existing
LQW
B
Red RNer St - IH 35 N)
IH 35 (N) - Chicon St.
MAU 4
MAU4
Existln•
Existing MAD 6
LOW
LOW
B
TEX- 969- 4
TEX- 969- 5
0 B
Chicon St. - Airport Blvd.
MAU 4
Existing MAD 6
LOW
B
TEX- 969- 6
Alr�ort Blvd. - Perez St
MAU 4
Existin. MAD 6
LOW
8
m
TEX- 969- 7
Perez St - Springdale Rd
MAU 4
I♦
Existing MAD 6
LOW
TEX- 969- 8
Springdale Rd. - Webervlle Rd.
MAU 4
tin.
Exis MAD 6
LOW
0 5
TEX- 969- 9
Weberville Rd. - US 183 (5)
MAU 4
MI
Existing MAD 6
LOW
0
TEX- 969- 10
US 183 (S) - Johnny Mortis Rd.
MAU 4
ExIstl_ MAD 8
LOW
0�
TEX- 969- 11
Johnny Mortis Rd. - Decker Ln.
MAU 4
MAD 6 NM
LOW
O
TEX- 969- 12
Decker Ln. - FM 973
MAU 4
=MAD
6 —
LOW
0
TEX 13
FM 973 - Taylor Ln.
MAU 2
IIIIII
MAD 4 —
LOW
NM
-9969-
TEX- 969- 14
To for Ln. - Studv BoundaTL(_0)
IMMUNE!
LOW
=Il.=
TEX- 969- 15
FM 973
WIIIamson Cgun 01
Line - US 29�
®
MAD 4
LOW
=o
TEX- 973- 1
TEX- 973-2
US 290(5) -FM969
MNR2
MIN
MAD 4
MED
+ B
FM 969 -SH 71 (E)
MNR 2
MED
• B
TEX- 973- 3
E) - Pearce Ln.
MNR 2
MINIZMCIMI
MED
B
TEX- 9124
TEX- 9725
TEX- 973- -6
______(.171
Pearce Ln. - Burleson Rd.
MNR
MN
MAD 4 MAD 6
MED
B 'reserve •'•'^ or • r• 1 .
Burleson Rd. - US 183 (S)
MNR 2
MAD 4 MAD 6
MED
B 'reserve7R5W t f MAD6
_
TEX- 1325- 1
FM 1325
Loop 1 - Rutland Dr.
MAD 4
mil
M AD 6 MAD 8
MED
B Preserve ROW for MAD 8
(Burnet Rood)
Rutland Dr. - US 183 (4)
MAD 4
NM
MAD 6 MAD 8
MED
MEI B Preserve ROW for MAD 8
TEX- 1325- 2
ME
FM 1327 (NHS)
IH 35 (SL)?leasont Valley) .
=a See B H 46
MS)
Pleasant Valley Rd. - Thoxton Rd.
I■
MMI
Exlstlna MAD4
•W
Q ee
B 're serve •"r or • r•a.
TEX- 1327_
(NHS)_
Thaxton Rd.- US 18_3B) MAU 2
i
—
FM 1431
Study BoundaN_ML Lohman Ford Rd. IMNRi
MI r 9U 2
HIGH
M B
B
TEX- 1431- 1
TAD- 1431- 2
TEX- 1431- 3
Lohman Ford Rd. - Trolls Ends Rd. MNR4
_M NR 4 / MAD 4
HIGH
Trails Ends Rd. - Anderson MITI Rd. MNR 4
AD 6
HIGH
8
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
Adopted June 12, 2000
7-8
Printed on 6/30100
EM t460/
Artedgl B (Round Rock)
Art.�al B
FM 1625/Williamson Rd.
FM 2001
FM 2770
MAD 4 MAD 6
MAD 6
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD
AD6
MA44
Exlstin
Anderson Mill Rd. - US 1831N) MNR4
US183(N)- US183_jA MAU4
US1: - P•nnQaa_n_e_ MAI4
owner Lane - Wvomlr LSDrinos Rd MAU 4
omin• S• j_KisRd -IH 35 MAU4
CR 111 - CR 114/ handler Rd
CR 114 /Chandler Rd. - US 79
US 79 - Gaits School Rd
Gattls School Rd - SH 45
US 183 (S) - FM 1327
fM 1327 - Moho CLeek
Moho Creek - Studv BOungislH
FM 1825 IH 35_01_Hepther_wilde BNd_ AD• MAD6 AO 8
Heatherwl(ie Blvd - 10th St. MAD 4 Existin
10th St. - FM 685 MAD 2
FM 1825_$12UR Clt Dr.) Grand Avenue Pkwv. 1825 MAU 2 MAD 6
FM 1826 /Como Ben US 290 (W) - Slaughter Ln.
McCuiloug Rd. Slaughter Ln. -51-145/0
SH45-($) -Stud_�BQ to arv(SW)
IH 35 (S) - Thaxton Rd.
IS auahter tn. - FM 1626
FM3177 US290(E) -FM969
Fjv13238JkiarnlHOn Pool2d County Line - FM 12
FM 12 -Cueva Dr
Cueva Dr- SH 71 (W)
FM . Sam Boss Rd. - IH 35 (N)
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
MAU 2
A
MNR20
MNR2
MNR2
MNR2
MAU4
BM I __ SH 71 (W) - Lohman 's Crosslna MAD 4
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
MAD
MAa• MAD8
MAD6 MAD8
MAD. MAD
Loop 4 - Studv55oundarv_($) MNR 2 Exist! a MAD 4
7-9
E H
MED
D
MED
MED
MED
D
MED
MED
EM 1626 IH 35 (5) - M9nchacq Rd. MAD 4 AQ4 MAD 6 MED
Manchoca Rd. - Travis County Une tv1AO 44 MAD 4 MAD 6 MED
Travis County Line - FM 967 AD • MAD 6
�t267- FM 2L70 fuT3t • ExMin• MAD6
MAD 8 HIGH B
MA MAD 6 HIGH B
MAD4 HIGH 8
MA 2 MAD 4 MED 8
FAl2304/Manchaca Rd. S. Lamar Blvd. - US 290 (W) MAU 4 Exist' • LOW
US 290 (W)-$t ssnev Ln. MA 4 ExBH� MAD 6 LOW 8
Stossnev Ln.- Wlllam5 on Dr. �y[.•I[:��Existir AD 6 LOW B
WMOam Cannon Dr. - Sta MAD 6 MAD 6 HIGH 8
AU 2 = MAD 4 HIGH B
FM 2769 Lime Creek Rd, - 9ullick Hollow Rd. MNR 2 Exlstns MED
___ Busick Hollow Rd-Cypress Creek Rd. (Des Ranch Rd) MNR2 Exlsfna MED
CvaressC : =k R. DI =r (t.... h .. .0 MA 0 -MAD6 MAD8 HIGH
HIGH
MAU 4 Exkslln s MAD 4 LOW
MAD2 HIGH
MAD2 HIGH
MAD2 M6D HIGH
AD6 MAD8 LOW
EXP6 FWy6 HIGH
OW
w
ow
g Preserve ROW tor MAU 6
g P(eserv5 W far MAU 6
B r ♦ eserve ROW for MAU 6
g • eserve IIOW for MAU 6
B
B
B
8
B
B
B
Preserve ROW for MAU 8 TEX- 1431- 4
Pfe reserve ROW for MADE TEX- 1431- 5
reserve ROW for MAUB— IES.= 1431- 6
eserve '• ^ OT v r• a : TEX- 1431- 7
eserve ROW for MAU 8 Tp(- 1431. 8
Non state r
Non s ate road
serve ROW tor MAU 8
Preserve ROW for MAD 6
Preserve ROW for MAU b
Preserve ROW 1 O MAD 4
B Preserve ROW for MAD 4
Adopted June 12, 2000
TEX 1460 1
TEX- 146Q2
TEX- 1460 =3
TEX- 1464
TEX- 1625- 1
Printed on 8130/00
TEX- 1625. 2
TEX- 1625- 3
TIX- 162 1 -
TEX -_ x 5242_
TEX- 1626- 3
TEX- 1626- 4
TEX- 1825- 1
TEX 1825 2
TEX- 1825- 3
TD(- 182 1
TEX- 1826- 1
TEX 1826- 2
TEX- 1826- 3
TD�_2001- 1
TEX- 23041
TEX- 2304- 2_
TEX- 2304'3
TEX._2904- 4
TEX- 2304- 5
TEX- 2769- 1
TEX- 2769- 2
TEX- 2769 - 3 -
TD(- 2770 -1
TEX- 3177- 1
TEX- 3238- 1
TEX- 3238 -.2_
TEX- 3238- 3
TEX-.. 3406- 1
g rP eserve or TEX- 62Q _ 1 -
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Figure 7.1
c.•
Area
Metro
2025 Roadway Plan Table
.
Existing
Adopted
Area
Envlron
Bike ,
Remarks
By2007
•
1997
2025
2025
Environ
Justice
Route
Roadway
Segment
Plan
Needs
Sensitivity
semmwb
System
Project ID 5
1
2
3
4
5 6
7
S
9
10
11
EM t460/
Artedgl B (Round Rock)
Art.�al B
FM 1625/Williamson Rd.
FM 2001
FM 2770
MAD 4 MAD 6
MAD 6
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD
AD6
MA44
Exlstin
Anderson Mill Rd. - US 1831N) MNR4
US183(N)- US183_jA MAU4
US1: - P•nnQaa_n_e_ MAI4
owner Lane - Wvomlr LSDrinos Rd MAU 4
omin• S• j_KisRd -IH 35 MAU4
CR 111 - CR 114/ handler Rd
CR 114 /Chandler Rd. - US 79
US 79 - Gaits School Rd
Gattls School Rd - SH 45
US 183 (S) - FM 1327
fM 1327 - Moho CLeek
Moho Creek - Studv BOungislH
FM 1825 IH 35_01_Hepther_wilde BNd_ AD• MAD6 AO 8
Heatherwl(ie Blvd - 10th St. MAD 4 Existin
10th St. - FM 685 MAD 2
FM 1825_$12UR Clt Dr.) Grand Avenue Pkwv. 1825 MAU 2 MAD 6
FM 1826 /Como Ben US 290 (W) - Slaughter Ln.
McCuiloug Rd. Slaughter Ln. -51-145/0
SH45-($) -Stud_�BQ to arv(SW)
IH 35 (S) - Thaxton Rd.
IS auahter tn. - FM 1626
FM3177 US290(E) -FM969
Fjv13238JkiarnlHOn Pool2d County Line - FM 12
FM 12 -Cueva Dr
Cueva Dr- SH 71 (W)
FM . Sam Boss Rd. - IH 35 (N)
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
MAU 2
A
MNR20
MNR2
MNR2
MNR2
MAU4
BM I __ SH 71 (W) - Lohman 's Crosslna MAD 4
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
MAD
MAa• MAD8
MAD6 MAD8
MAD. MAD
Loop 4 - Studv55oundarv_($) MNR 2 Exist! a MAD 4
7-9
E H
MED
D
MED
MED
MED
D
MED
MED
EM 1626 IH 35 (5) - M9nchacq Rd. MAD 4 AQ4 MAD 6 MED
Manchoca Rd. - Travis County Une tv1AO 44 MAD 4 MAD 6 MED
Travis County Line - FM 967 AD • MAD 6
�t267- FM 2L70 fuT3t • ExMin• MAD6
MAD 8 HIGH B
MA MAD 6 HIGH B
MAD4 HIGH 8
MA 2 MAD 4 MED 8
FAl2304/Manchaca Rd. S. Lamar Blvd. - US 290 (W) MAU 4 Exist' • LOW
US 290 (W)-$t ssnev Ln. MA 4 ExBH� MAD 6 LOW 8
Stossnev Ln.- Wlllam5 on Dr. �y[.•I[:��Existir AD 6 LOW B
WMOam Cannon Dr. - Sta MAD 6 MAD 6 HIGH 8
AU 2 = MAD 4 HIGH B
FM 2769 Lime Creek Rd, - 9ullick Hollow Rd. MNR 2 Exlstns MED
___ Busick Hollow Rd-Cypress Creek Rd. (Des Ranch Rd) MNR2 Exlsfna MED
CvaressC : =k R. DI =r (t.... h .. .0 MA 0 -MAD6 MAD8 HIGH
HIGH
MAU 4 Exkslln s MAD 4 LOW
MAD2 HIGH
MAD2 HIGH
MAD2 M6D HIGH
AD6 MAD8 LOW
EXP6 FWy6 HIGH
OW
w
ow
g Preserve ROW tor MAU 6
g P(eserv5 W far MAU 6
B r ♦ eserve ROW for MAU 6
g • eserve IIOW for MAU 6
B
B
B
8
B
B
B
Preserve ROW for MAU 8 TEX- 1431- 4
Pfe reserve ROW for MADE TEX- 1431- 5
reserve ROW for MAUB— IES.= 1431- 6
eserve '• ^ OT v r• a : TEX- 1431- 7
eserve ROW for MAU 8 Tp(- 1431. 8
Non state r
Non s ate road
serve ROW tor MAU 8
Preserve ROW for MAD 6
Preserve ROW for MAU b
Preserve ROW 1 O MAD 4
B Preserve ROW for MAD 4
Adopted June 12, 2000
TEX 1460 1
TEX- 146Q2
TEX- 1460 =3
TEX- 1464
TEX- 1625- 1
Printed on 8130/00
TEX- 1625. 2
TEX- 1625- 3
TIX- 162 1 -
TEX -_ x 5242_
TEX- 1626- 3
TEX- 1626- 4
TEX- 1825- 1
TEX 1825 2
TEX- 1825- 3
TD(- 182 1
TEX- 1826- 1
TEX 1826- 2
TEX- 1826- 3
TD�_2001- 1
TEX- 23041
TEX- 2304- 2_
TEX- 2304'3
TEX._2904- 4
TEX- 2304- 5
TEX- 2769- 1
TEX- 2769- 2
TEX- 2769 - 3 -
TD(- 2770 -1
TEX- 3177- 1
TEX- 3238- 1
TEX- 3238 -.2_
TEX- 3238- 3
TEX-.. 3406- 1
g rP eserve or TEX- 62Q _ 1 -
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway
t
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
Segment
2
Existing
1997
3
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Area Metro
x Adopted Ana &Aron Bike
By 2007 2025 2025 Environ Justice
Plan Needs Sensitivity Sm44d
4 5 6 7 8 ,
7 -10
Remarks
10
Adopted June 12, 2000
Printed on 8130/00
Protect ID
11
TEX- 624 2
TEX- 620- 3
TEX 620- 44
TEx -_ 620- 5
TEX- 620- 6
TEX- 620- 7
TEX- 620—••8
TEX- 2222- 1
TEX- 2222- 2
TEX- 2222- 3
TEX- 'rut- 4
TD(- 2222- 5
TEX- 2222- 6
TEX- 2222- 7
TEX- 2222_ 8
TEX- 2243- 1
TEX- 2243- 2
TEX- 2244- 1
TEX- 2244- 2
TEX- 2244- 3_
TEX- 2244- 4
TEX- 2244- 5
TEX- 2244- 6
TCR- 105- 1
WCR- 110- 1
CR- 112- 1 -
C R- 113- 1
CR_114�
CR- 114- 2
CR- 114- 3_
CR- 114- -4
_CR- 115- 1
CR- 115_2
CR- 122- 1
CR- 122- 2
CR- 122- 3
JC1;�6¢_L
✓ CR- 1642_
R- 168- 3
i
Quinlan Park - Anderson Mlil Rd. MAD 4
Anderson Mill Rd. - US 183 (N) MAD 4
EXP 6 V
HIGH
B _
I+ I + +
--
_
(SH 45) (NHS) ^
TOLL PAW 6
ee 45 (N) --
Sae SFr4b (N) —
(SH 45) (NHS)
US 183 (N) - SH 45_(N)_ MAU 4
=
_
TOLL F WV 6�
_
_
SH 45 (N) _O'Connor Dr. MAU 4
MAD 6 MAD 8
HIGH
Preserve ROW for MAU 8
cgaLor Dr_- Wyomino SDdnas Dr !MAU 4
0m1oA SArinps Dl- IH 35(N) MAD 4
MAD 6
MAD 8
MAD 8
HIGH
Preserve ROW for MAD 8
MAD 6
HIGH
Preserve ROW tor MAU 8
RM 2222/
RM 620 - Riverplace Blvd.
MAU 4
MAD 4
MAD 8
HIGH
m
{__L
Preserve ROW for MAD 6
Koe_nic aneLandgle
illy lace Blvd._Tumbiewegst
MAU 4
MAD 4
,MAD 8
MAD 8
MAD 8
MAD 8_
MAD6
MAD 6
LI
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
I
HIGH
HIGH
2XMS x=
reserde ROW for MAD 6
r Blvd.
MAD 4
-. ^•
MAD 4
MAD 4
MADE.
MAD 4 _
MAD4
MAD 9-_
ExistIDA .
MAD 4
Extstino
B
Presen!e1TOWTorMAU
._ _
Jester Blvd. - Loop$60
MAD 4
MAU 4
MAD4 /MW.
MAU 4
WM 4
Preserve or
P — :serve ROW for MAU 6
(NHS)
MEM _
£$pur 69) (NHS)
Loop 360 - Loop 1 _
LoopL =N. Lamar Blvd.
N. LanQB = Airport Blvd.
_(Spur 62)__(NE_S) _ 1 Alpprt Biv_d. _ IH 35 LNG _ —. --
-- B --
_
MAU 2
MAU 2
_ —__ --
RM 2243 _ Travis County Une. - C2_268
CR 268 - Sam Bass Rd.
RM 2244 SH 71 )8< 0 - Cuemavaca Dr.
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 4
Existing
MAD 6
MAD 6
MAD 8
MAD 8
HIGH
HIGH
NIGH
Cuernavaca Dr. - Crvstol creek Dr.
_(Bee Cave Rd) •I Creek Dr. - Barton Creek Blvd.
Barton Creek Blvd. - Loop 360
MAU 4
MAD 4
MAD 6
MAD 8
HIGH
Loop 360 - Westlake Dr.
MAU 4
MAD 4
MAQ6_MAD
8
MED
Westlake Dr. - Loop 1
MAU 4
MAD4
MAD 6
MAD 8
HIGH
CR 105/Tumersslle Rd.
IH 35 (S) - US 183 (5)
MNR 2/0
MNR 2
LOW
CR 110
Westinahouse_R US19
MNR 2
MAD 4
MED
CR112
FM1460 -CR122
MNR2
MAU4
LOW
B
CR 113
FM 1460 - CR 122
/ 4
MAD 4
ILOW
,MNR2
CR 114 /Chandler Rd.
IH 35 (N) —Rjj5JS1tn4SeRd,
MAD 4
MAD 4
LQW
B
B
B
B
CR 1 15 /Su j g 13d - FM 1460
MAD 4
—
MAD 4
MAD 6
LOW
LQW
LOW
FM 1460 - CR 110
CR 110-SH 130(N)
—
MAD6
CR 115/Sunrise Rd.
CR 114 handier Rd. - CR 1 13 /Old Settlers BIN
CR 113 /Qld Settler's Blvd. - US 79
MAD 4
MAU 4
Exlstll _
MAD 4
MAD4
_
MED
MED
LOW
B
B
8
( MNR2
CR122
CR112 -US 79
US79- CR168JGattls School Rd.
MNR2
—
MAD
MAD 4
, LOW
LOW
LOW
B
-
CR 168 Qattts School Rd. -SH 45 (N)
B
See Heatherwilde blvd.
_Q12 168LLz tat sl ScJ oolJT•
BR IH 35 - Greenlawn Blvd. MAU 4
MAD 6
Greenlawn Blvd -- Arterial B MAU 4
MAD 6
LOW
B
Art = • B -CR 122 MAU4
MAD4
LOW LOW
B
CR 122 -FM 685 MAU2
MAD
B
1
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway
t
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
Segment
2
Existing
1997
3
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Area Metro
x Adopted Ana &Aron Bike
By 2007 2025 2025 Environ Justice
Plan Needs Sensitivity Sm44d
4 5 6 7 8 ,
7 -10
Remarks
10
Adopted June 12, 2000
Printed on 8130/00
Protect ID
11
TEX- 624 2
TEX- 620- 3
TEX 620- 44
TEx -_ 620- 5
TEX- 620- 6
TEX- 620- 7
TEX- 620—••8
TEX- 2222- 1
TEX- 2222- 2
TEX- 2222- 3
TEX- 'rut- 4
TD(- 2222- 5
TEX- 2222- 6
TEX- 2222- 7
TEX- 2222_ 8
TEX- 2243- 1
TEX- 2243- 2
TEX- 2244- 1
TEX- 2244- 2
TEX- 2244- 3_
TEX- 2244- 4
TEX- 2244- 5
TEX- 2244- 6
TCR- 105- 1
WCR- 110- 1
CR- 112- 1 -
C R- 113- 1
CR_114�
CR- 114- 2
CR- 114- 3_
CR- 114- -4
_CR- 115- 1
CR- 115_2
CR- 122- 1
CR- 122- 2
CR- 122- 3
JC1;�6¢_L
✓ CR- 1642_
R- 168- 3
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Man Table
Roadway Segment
1 2
Existing
1997
3
sv w ..•
42007
4
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Project ID 6
11
Adopted
2025
Plan
5
1 Area
2025 1 Environ
Needs !Sensitivity
6 7 i
Area
EnvIron
Justice
Se s44412
8
Metro
Bike Remarks
Route
System
9 10
C Leulck Hill Rd.
McNell Rd. - SU 45 ((j_
MAU 4
MAD 4
HIGH
WCR- 172-
1
CR 177/272/275
FM 143�_L 1kelne Blvd
Ian■
uIyPfc���
MNR 4
u t
MAD4
H IGH
G,
HIGH
B
B
WAR- 177-
WAR- 177 - •
WCR- 177-
1
2_
3
Crystal Fa1ISQkv p
Lakellne Blvd - C12 278 /Bagdad Rd.
CR 278/Baada i Rd. - US 183
SLS183(N)- USJ83(A)
US 183 (A) - Sam Bass Rd.
I
MAU 2
u•D
NMI AU 4
G
HIGH
MIMI B
INIIM0
WCR- 177-
WCR- 177-
4
5
CR 278 /Bagtlad Rd.
FM 2243 - Crustal Falls Pkwv
Cfysial Falb Pkwv - Cedar Pork C Limits
MAU 4
MAU 4
AU
MAD 4
MnD 4 MAD 4
Mn0 u AOA
MED
MED
MED
In
III=
B
B
B
WCR- 278- 1
WCR - 27$2_
WCR - 278- 3
C edQr - EprkCityL
New Hope Rd. - FM1431
MAU 4
(♦ I♦
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD4
MAD6
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD MAD4
I♦ MAD 6
MAD 6
MN MAD6
Exlsline
M MAD 6
MAD 6
MED
LOW
LOW
LOW
WCR -278-
4
Airport Blvd.
N. Lamar Blvd - RM 2222
AIR- 01_1
AI&_43.
AIR- 01- 3
RM 2222 - 51St St.
51st St.- 1H35(N)
ISM 111)(NHS)
IH35(N) - Manor Rd.
Manor Rd. - MLK Blvd.
MAD8 L.
MAD 8 LOW
MAD 8 LOW
B
B
AIR- 01-
AIR- 01-
4
5
(SH 111) (NHS)
(SH 111) (NHS)
(SH 111) (NHS)
MLK Blvd. - E. 12th St.
AIR- 01-
6
7
8
E. 12th St. - Oak Springs Dr.
Oak Springs Dr. - US 183 (N)
MAD 4
MAD 4
M AD 6
MAD 6
MAD 8 LOW
MAD 8 LOW
l0
l0
AIR-
AIR- 01-
(SH 111) (NHS)
Akerson Urn.
Loop l - Bumet Rd.
MAD 4
MAD 6 MAD 6
•
AND- 01-
1
Bumet Rd. - Woodrow Ave.
MAD 4
MAD 6 MAD •
LOW
AND =Q1_$_
AND- 01-
AND - 02-
AND- 02-
AND 02
AND- 02-
AND - 02-
3
1
2
3_
4
5_
- 7
8
9 ,
1Q
Woodrow Avg N. L�or Blvd.
MAD 4
( 1
—
[♦1
MAU 2
MAU 4
MAU 2 0
—
Is■
MAD 4
.
nal MAD 6
MAD 6
MAD 2 MAD 6
MAD 2 MAD •
MEE D
MAD 4
MAD 4
MON M • D 4
IMI MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 4 MAD 4
u • D 4
S
—
AD
MAD 6
MAD 6
=HIGH
LOW
IGH
HIGH
HIGH
Oplimae roadway geometria and ospnment of rood wNie
avonlna o take of proven eraanoered spedes habitat less
permitted by U.S. R5 B made Service and mll9atedthereby
Anderson MITI Rd./
FM 1431 - Ume Cre R I.
Ume Creek Rd. - Buttercup Creek Blvd.
&mercup Creek Blvd - Cypress Creek Rd. (Dies Ranch Rd)
FM 2769
Cvoress a •,.: • 1 . =r t • h R • - RM 6 1
RM 620 - SDlcewood Pkwy.
HIGH
HIGH
HI H
HIGH
e
Spicewood Pkwv. - US 183 (N)
AND___
AND- 02-
AND- 02-
AND- 02-
AND - 02-
US 183 (N).ftirmer Ln
Palmer Ln. - Howard Ln.
Howard Ln. - FM 1325 (Loop])
JGreenlawn
FM 1325 (Loop 1) - IH 35 (N)
LOW /MED
Ht H
0
B
Arterial A (Cedar Park) /
FM 1431 = Bnuhy Creek
CP- A-
CAA=
1
2
North Lake Creek Parkway
Brushy Creek - SH 45 R/ M 620
Arterial13_(Cedorlod0
FM 143- Bntiy_Creek Road
MNR4 MNR4
LOW
_____CP-
B-
J_
Arterial C (Cedar Park)
Arterial B - Palmer
—
IME1MTM
LOW
CP- C-
1
Artedd A (Pfluaervllle)
PfiupervNe Rd East - Rowe Lane
—
MAD 4
LOW
PFL- A-
1_
Arterial A (Travis County)
Parmar Lane - US 290(E)
lSee SWT3O, To be determInea by SH 130 OnoI
alignment (some as westem align.)
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
Adopted June 12, 2000
7 -11
Printed on 8/30/00
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway Segment
1 2
I Existing
1997
3
oven*
By2007
4
Adopted Area
2025 2025 Envlron
Plan Needs I Sensitivity
5 t 6 i 7
Area I Metro
Environs Bike Remarks
Justice I Route
ystem
8 1 9 10
Proje ID*
11
Arterial A (Round Rock)
Louts Henna /Mehier to Forest Creek _T
See SH 130. To be determined by SH l30 final
ollgnment (same as western align )
ForQst_Creek to N. of US 79
US 79 - WestInghouse Rd
- - - -_- -
I
• -
Arferltd_i (Round Rock)
Arterial C (Round Rock)
_______-
- - -
--
FM 1460
I
Sam Bass Rd. _RM 620
- MAD.4.
MED
MED
8 - -- — —
RM 62(),_$H 45
- MAD 4
B
RR- C- 1
RR- C- 2
Artedal G LRoun Rt c10
Sam BassrtC. - Wyornir pripas Rd
- MAD 4
MED
RR- G 1
_ _
_
Arterial H (Round Rock)
Sam Bass Rd - Wyomingdngs Rd
- MAD 4
MED
RR- H- 1
Arterial 6 (Hays County) _LSH 4515) - FM 967
- MAD 4
HIGH
B
HC- 6- 1
X13 3Ro 0 0 0 lo! IW 0 oIo
• L i I 1 > s 111 I I
I( i ! —
'mImImI m � � � �i��
, m
IIIIi�, l,I
Baiton SQrings Rd. _ - Loop 1 - Robert E. Lee Rd.
MNR 4 MAU 4 MAD 6
Add shoulders for bicycling - - --
BAR_ 01- 1
Robert E. Lee Rd. - S. Larnar Blvd_ _
MNR 4 Ii= MAD 4 MAD 6
B AR- BAR- 01- 2
BAR- 01_3
BAR- 01- 4
BEC 1
S. Lamar Blvd. - S. l sf. St
-- -- - - --
-�
S. 1sT St. - S. Congress Ave.
MAD 4 Existing MAD 6
MNR4 �MAU4 MADE
_
Backe R • -I Wllllym c_ar�ngn Dr. - IMa Dr. _ - --
MNR • NM Exlsflna
- -- -
Kiva Dr. - Doyis Ln.
MNR 40MN i
- 01-
BEC Ol- 2 ,
BEC- 01- 3
Davis Ln. - Slaughter Ln.
- MNR 4
-- _
Berkman Dr. St. Johns Ave. - 51st St.
MNR 2 MNR 4 _,`MAU 4
BER- 01- 1
_
Bloke Manor Rd. FM 973 - Taylor Ln. _
MNR 2 MAD 4
_
I
BLA- 01- 1
BLU- 01- 1
Bluff SorlIMS ROI._ 1/IIII • m Cannon Dr, - Slaughter Ln
MAD •
Oki Lockhart Hwy_ _..�.
Slaughter Ln__Onlon Creek
Onion Creek - Pleasant Valley Rd.
_ MAD 4
MAD 4
-- - --
____ ___
-��-
BLU- Ol- 2 j
BLU- 01- 3
=4 j
BLU- 01 = 5
Pleasant Valley Rd. - FM 1625
MNR 2 MAD 4
FM 1625 - US 183 (S)
MAD 4
1,--- .BLU_
[ I �i
Broker tn./BlueG SO Rd.
JoIlLVA1QRp,A1S 183 (N)
MI MAD $_ - --
-
BRA- 01- 1 _I
BRA_01:_2_ ,
BRA- O1 -_3
._.
US 183 (N) - FM
IMIN Exktin.
FM 1325 - Metric Blvd.
Esktin • MAD 8
- - - - -- _.
Metric Blvd, - Parkfieid Dr.
Existing
:c
�LL
3a
- - -- —
Parkfield Dr. - N. Lamar Blvd.
Existing - r
BRA-_01-
BRA - 011 = 5
BRA- 01- 6
BRA- 01- 7
N. Lamar Blvd.- IH 35 (N)
__
MAD 6 - �
—"
IH 35 (N) - Dessau Rd.
MAD 6
MAD 8
Move intersection with Dessau to north if
Dessau Rd. SH 130
-
MAD 6
MAD 8
MED
MED
MED
..
o
B
B
B
easible to avoid bridging Walnut Creek.
BRA- 01- 8
BRA- 01_ 9
BRA- 01- 10:
SH 130 - Harris Branch Pkwy.
-
MAD 4
MAD4 J
US290(E)- Toler Ln.
MNR 2/0
Brazes St,
11th St. - Cesar Chave3
MAU_4
Existing
a .
LOW
BRA-.._02:- 1
BRO 01 -
BRO- 01- 2
r-- _ _
Brodie Ln.
US 290 (W) - William Cannon Dr.
MAD 4
Exlstin.
MED
--- - - -___
WIIA Davis . Ln. Cannon Dr. - Da Ln.
MAD 4
MAD 4
LOW
-
_ _ _
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
•
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
7 12
Adopted June 12, 2000
Printed on 8/30100
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Man Table "
Roadway Segment
1 2
Existing
1997
3
came
By 2007
4
CAMPO 2025 Plan _
Project ID
11
Adopted
2025
Plan
5
2025
Needs
6
Area
Env(ron
Sensitivity
7
iH
Metro
Bike '
Route
System
9
Remarks
10
MPO4
MAU 4
M
MA
MAD4
MAU 4
MNR 2
MNR 2
MNR4
Existln.
Existing
Existin
Exlsfln
M
MAD 6
AD 4
MAD 4
MAU
Exist
n
Exisjln
Ex n
1st
Existing
E1151100
Exist'
MAD4
M D4
NR 4
Existing
Exist]
MAD 6
MAD 6
MAD 6
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
Qw
LOW
LOW
LOW
MED
LOW
LOW
L
MNR 4 LOW
LOW
MNR 4
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MAD
MNR2
M_NR2
MNR2
MNR2 MAD4
MNR2 MNR4 MAD4
MNR2
MAD 4
MAD4
NR 9 MED
NR4 MED
NR MED
MAl1¢_ Ming. LOW
MAD 6 Existing MAD 8 LOW
MuOMUU MAD MAD 6 LOW
MAU 4 MAD 4 MAD . LOW
MAU2MIAW MAD MAD LOW
HI- 01- 1
CHI- 01- 2
'Davis Ln. - SIaugt11g_r l
laughter Ln - Squirrel Hollow
Irrel Hollow - Frpte Bartel Rd
F ate Barker Rd. - FM 1626
Brush Coun5 Rd. /Lattq-D1. Monterrey Oaks Blvd. - William Cannon _Dr. MNR 0L2
Witham Ca0[lon Dr. - Mto Loma MNR 2
ARa_Lema - Davis In. —
Baej meek Rd Cypress Creep- epnner In.
Bullidc Hollow RdL - __ FM 2769 - RM 620
Lon Hollow Tr.
Burleson Rd./Elroy Rd./ Mort St. - SH 71 (E)
Fal�erg_uist Rd. SH 71 (D - Montopol s Dr.
4 MonIo0011s Dr. - McKinney Falls Pkwy.
MclBnney Falls P LUS 183 (S)_
US 1S&($) - FM 973
FM •73 - SH -130
H_130- Slusly oundorv(E)
Burnet Rd.
Butier�D CfOek Blvd
htsholm Troll Rd
C tiv Park Rd� ---
Colorado St.
US 183 N) - Andelson Jn.
n Ln.- RM2222
RM 2222 - 45th St.
Lakellne BIB. - US 183 (N)
Cesar Chavez/W. /E. First St. Loopy N. Lamar B Nd. MAU 4
N. Lamar Blvd. - San Antonio 1 MAU 4
Sonn>�nlo St. - Trinity St. MAU 4
Trinity St. - IH35(N1- u• 4
II-135 (N) - Pleasant Valley Rd. MNR 2
Pleasant Valley Rd. - E. 7th St. IMNR
Chlcon St. E. 26th St. - Rosewood Ave.
Rosewood Ave. - Haskell St.
FM 1431 - Exlsting_CSilsol�rl Trail
Existing Chisolm Trail - Sam Bass Rd
EMM_o Long Me Park - RM 2222_
11th St - loth St.
10th St. - Cesar Chavez
Congress Aye. _ 11th St. Cesar Chaves
Cesar Chavgz,ltorf St.
_ Char( St. - US 290 (w)
.(Loot 275) _ US 290 (W) -Wiliam Cannon Dr.
,Qo p 27) WIIA=_Ccinn Sl aug-hte
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
AU 2
MAD4 MADE MED
MAU 2LMAD4 MED
MAU2 MAD4 MED
MAU 2 MAD 4 MED
7 13
B
B�
B
B
Adopted June 12, 2000
Printed on 8/30/00
BRQ-
_ BR4_9L- - 4_
BRO- 01- 5
BRO- 01- 6
BRU- Q1- 1
BRU- 01- 2_
BRU- 01- 3
RU —Q2 1_
UL- 01- 1 1
BUR- 01- 1
BUR- 01- 2
BUR- 01- 3
BUR- 01- 4
BUR 01 - 6
BUR- 0101 = 6
BUR- 01- 7
02- 2
B UR - 02 =3
CE$- 01- 1 '
CES- 01- 2_
CES- 01- 3
CES- 01- 4
CES- 01- 5
CES- 01- , 6
: R- 01- 1
QL- 01- 1
COL_0 - 2
_ . CO_N=01_7.I.
CON- 01:
g CON -01- 3.
_275
g • t• TEX- 275- 2
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway Segment
1 2
Existing
1997
3
r -wvi
BY 2007
, 4
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Protect IDS
11
Adopted
2025 2025
Plan Needs
5 6
Area
Environ
Sensitivity
7
Area
Environ
Justice
&railway
i 8
Metro
Bike Remarks
System
10
p e e k Bend Blvd,/
ji&MT Water_
_
F 1431 - FM 3406
MAU 0/4
MAD 4
MAD 4
CRE- 01- 1
FM 3406 - Wvoming_Sprl�s Dr.
MAU 0/4
MAD 4
_
MAD 4
MAD 4
MED
1 _ _ - - - -___
CRE_ 01- 2
CRE- 01- 3
W . mi�tr _S�rings D/L Great Oaks Dr. MAU O/4
MAD 4
MED _4
_
__
Chess Creek Rd.[
Br_tnhv Creed_
_. __
Anderson Mill Rd. - US 183 (N) MAU 4 MAU 4
MAD 4
MED
1
CYP- 01_ 1
S 18 N)- Howard Ln. - - 'MN 2 MAD4
MAD4
MAD 4
MED
M ED 1
_
CVP- 01- 2_
CYP- 0 3
F Howard Ln. - 43406
_
vL1AD 4
MAD 4
AD 2 -
MMOD
MEO
-•e,•
Xrils Ln./Deer Ln./
Slaughter Ln, - Beckett Rd. MAD 4 s
DAV- 01- 1
DlNmar Rd. _
Beckett Rd _Brodie L.. -
_ _
DAV- 01- 2
DAV- 0 =
DAV- 01- 4
. - -_ - -_-- -- - -_ Brgdle Ln. - Huebi�er Pass urBxtnv,oa
Huebin�er Pass -0,. 1st St. MM..
2 MAU 4
MAD 4 MAU _4
S C. anaress Ave. - IH 35 (S) MN C 2 0
DAV- 01- 5
Davis Sprbigs Rd / US 183 (, • ()S 183 -
MAD 4
1
DAV- 02- 1
- (A) _ _
O'�4.Oner Dr. US 183_(A) - Parmer Li - MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 4 _
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 4 1 _____ II
MAD 4
AD 4
MAD 4
MAD 6
iI i x l x x 3.3.3 I 3
� c�c7c�c�lc�
:Y� = =1=1 =� Oi0i0i O
_
MINNI
- - --
r
I ••m I ml Im
IU II Hk il
DAV- 02- 2
DAV- Q2_3
DAV - 02- 4
,
P orin_Howard In. MAD 4
_ - - --
Howa 1.2,Szfeai Oaks Dr. - MAD 4
____ _
_
____ _LQreat Oaks Dr. _RLv1620 MAD 4
DAV - 02- 5
_ IRM 620- Arterial C MAD 4 =
_
DAV- 02- 6
_
Pecker, LA. SYud_y oundmLNEZgjusterville East Rd.
_
D(5 D1 =L
__IMN92
PfluaeMlle East Rd.- Wells &snftl.livy, MNR2
DEC- 01- 2
DEC- 11-- 3
Wells Branch Pkwv. - US 29�E) MN, L2JP
W e i s Pkwv. M 2 MAD 4
DES- 01- 1
DES- 01- �_
DE$ 0it___.3 _
01- 4
-Ol- 1
CAM- 01- 2
CAM -01- 3
Wells BraP_cti Pkwy. - Howard ls.. MNR 2 MAD 4
MAD 6 MAD B
MAD 6 MAD 8
MADE
AD -B,�.
MAD 6
MAD4
LOW
_
,.,- -- —_ - Howard L ,_-_pa er Ln. AD 4
- - - --
- - - -�-
_
RUndbera Ln. MADE
_-----
_ _ + Parmerin.-
(CaMerp Rd, -- R�r CI`12 MAD 6
(Cameron Rd.) �bete Ln_- US 183 US 183 (N) - US 290 (E) MAD 6
_DES
_CA[vt
(Cameron Rd.) US 290 (E)- 5lsF St. MAU4 IM
IMIN
MAD
A0 44
!OW
MED
.
!mlm
i,
.I l
Double CreekB SH45 (N) - GalfaS ,l Rd 1
DOU -_01- 1
Goths School Rd_US 79 MAD 2
_ —
DO* pl- 2
DOU- 01- ,3
US 79 -FM 1460
MAD
MNR 4 1MAU 4
Exisil� _
Existing
s7 n. _
Existing_ MAD 6
MED
LOW
LOW
HI
LQW
LOW
LOW
=NM
_
Duval Rd. 1: N _) tIs_pedng Valley Dr. _ -- MAU 2
--
DUV- 01- 1
DUV- 01- 2
,-_ Wh_pednp Val ey Dr,_- Loop 1 MAD 4
_
1M
El Salida RM 620 - Cypress Creek
MIMI
_
-" _ -
ElS_Q1 =
_ f
Enfield RdL51h St. Lake Austin Blvd. - Exposition BNd.
FspoJ ion BNd. - LoaP_ 1
ENF- 01- 1 _
ENF =QI_ 2
ENE- 01 -_3
BM
LooDU_N. Lamar Blvd. MNR 4
N. Lamm Blvd,West Ave. MAD . tsfinp L OW
_
ENF- 01- 4
West Ave. - Red_RLver SL, MAD 6 Existing LOW
ENF- 01- 5
______ . ______
Red River St. - IH 35 (N) MAD 6 Existng_ LOW
ENF- 01- 6
NM
Escarpment Blvd. William Cannon Dr, - Davis La MAD 6 MIIRMINNI - I HIGH
B
ESC- 01- 1
Davis In. - SH 45(S) MAD 4∎ .fyuL 7r HIGH
- - 8
8
—
Preserve ROW for A MAD 4.
ESC- 01- 2
ESC- 01- 3
SH -45(S) - FM 967 - MAU 2 AD 4 HIGH
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
714
Adopted June 12, 2000
Printed on 6/30/00
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway - . Segment
1 2
Existing
1997
I 3
CAMPO 2025 Plan
,
Project
11
Adopted
2025
Plan
5
Area
2025 EnvIron
Needs Sensitivity
I 6 1 7
Area
Environ
Justice
Setehily
, S
Metro
Bike
Route
System
9
I Remarks
10
n.r�.e
By2007
1 4
-
_
Milt 44
LOW
Eu ositbn Blvd.
- -�
W . 35th $1. - West ver d. _
MNR 4
MNR 2
Existing
_L___1____,
B
B
- - - - - — - -_
E(p- 01- 1
Westover Rd - Enfield Rd.
Existing_
LOW
LOW
_
�
E7(P- Q7 = 2_
EXP- 01- 3
Enfield 3Ed. - Lake Austin Blvd.
MNR 2
Existing.
__ _
i
Fr __Vest Blvd. MBSa O.I. Mart Ln.
tL Ln.
MN L4
Existing
Existing
HI13H
MED
1GH
B
FAR- 01- 1
FAR- 01- 2
'
Hart - Loop_l___ "-- . _. --_- --
US 290 W - Travis Count_UnQ
MAD 6
I
B
�
MNR 2
MAD 4
FR- Ol 1
Fih[huS1h Rd _
Forest Creek
Double Creek Blvd - Arterial A
OLMAD 4
MAD 2
MAD 4
MAD 4
LOW
FOR- 01- 1
Arterial A - CR 122
LOW
FOR- 01 =2._
Rate Barker Rd.
Rd.
SH 451S) - Monchaca Rd.
MNR 012
MAD 4
HIG.ji
B
FRA- 01- 1
,GG! s _.4
US 29Q H4rr &anch Pkwv.
MNR 2
ExlstiA
O_(N
GIL_ 01- 1 _,
Grand Avenue Pkwv./
Greenlawn Blvd.. - IH 35
0 /MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 4
Existing
LOW
GRA- 01- 1
CR 170
IH 35 (N) - Iw Bridge
GRA- 01- 2
Ivy Bddae - Ptivaer Ln. /PI1uaeMlle Loop Rd
MNR 2
MAD 4
-LOW
LOW
(Realign intersection wlh PffugeMlle Loop
GRA- 01- 3
PBuger Ln. /F0uoet li_ejoo�Rd.- SH45(E)
MNR2
MAD4
LOW
GRA- 01- 4
Great Hills Tr.
Lo_p_p 360 - US 183 (N)
MAD 4
Existing
Existing
MED
MED
GRE- 01- 1
GRE_)1- 2
1 -15119_0 - Stonelake Blvd.
MAD
Great Oaks Dr.
Creek Rd, - RM 620
MAD 4
-
Exlstin.
MAD 4
OW
LOW
GRE- 02- 1 i
GRE- 02- 2
_Botshv
RM 620 - Arterial C
Greenlawn Blvd.
CR 168/Gents School Rd. - SH 45 (N)
SH 45 (N) - IH 35 (N,)
MAD 4
—
-
MAD 4
MAD 6
MAD 6
MAD 4
LOW
LOW
MAD 6 LOW
B
0
B
G RE- 03- 1
GRE�s- 2_
GRE - 03- 3
- _
IH 35 (N) - Loop 1
GreaaA4onor Rd.
Fuchs Grove Rd. - US 290(E)
MNR 2
MAD 4
LOW
0
GRE - 04- 1
Grove Blvd.
US 183 (S) - Fairway St.
MNR 0/4
Existing
MED
B
GRO- 01- =1
Falnvay St. - Montopolis Dr.
MAD4
Existing
MED
B
See Montopo0sDr.
GRO.01- 2
Guadalupe St.
N. Lamar Blvd - 45th St.
45th St - 38th St.
MAU 4
MAD 4
Existina
Exislln
LOW
• W
GUA- 01- .L r
GUA- 01_,___2___
GUA-01=_8,___
GUA- 01- 4
GUA- QL- - 5
GUA- 01- 6
38th St. - 29th St.
MAD 4
ExistIn.
MAU 6 1173111111111111111111
MAU 6 LOW
MAU 6 LOW
29th St. - 26th St.
MAU 4
u A •
Existino
t •
-
26th St. - 24th 5t
24th St - Mil( Blvd.
MAU 4 MI
Ex811 •
Fs- lo e
MAU 6 L• W I■
L OW I■
MLK Blvd. - Ce C m_e2
GUA- 01- 7
Harris &on &h Pkwy /
Cameron Rd.
Study Boundary (NE) - Kelly Ln.
MIMI
MAD 4
LOW
B
HAg 01- 1
Kelly Ln. - °Mlle Rd.
Pflug e Rd. - Wells Branch Pkwy.
u NO 2
MNR 2
u AD 6
MAD 6
LOW
LOW
B
B
HAR: 01- 2—
HAR- 01- 3
Wens Branch Pit. - Baaker Ln.
MNR 2
MAD 6
LOW
B
HAR- 01- 4
Baaker Ln.- US290(E)
MAD4
MAD6
—LOW
MINE
0
HAR- 01- 5
Hants Ridge Blvd. 1
Howard Ln. - IH 35 (N)
-
MAD 6
HIGH
HAR- 02- L
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
Adopted June 12, 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
7 15
Printed on 0130100
Mare 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway Segment
1 2
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Area Metro
Existing I Adopted Area Environ Bike
1997 113y 2007 2025 2025 Environ Justice Route
Plan Needs I Sensitivity Ses4444 System
3 i 4 5 I 6 I 7 8 9
Remarks
10
lieathe�v ilia Blvd./ J _CR768LGaltis School RASH 130�N) — _ MAD 4
Arterial #14 I SH 130 (N) - PO17Aer Ln. _— — MAD 4
PBUaer Ln. FM 1825 MAD FM 1825 - Wefts Branch Pkwy MAD 4
_ _ __i _ We0s Broach Pkwy, - Pgr4ler Ln. — MAD 4 MAD 4
Lakeline Mali
S. Lakeshore Blvd.
Lakeway_Blvd.
Woodrow Aye.= N. Lamar Blvd..
Pecan Pork Blvd. - Lake Creek Parkway
Lake Creek Parkway - Parm =r a e
Lamar Blvd. /Loop 275 IH 35 (M - Partner Ln.
SLOOP 275) Pormer Ln. - Rundberg Ln.
( 27¢)_ — _ _a Rund¢eio Ln. - US 183_(N),_
US 183 (N) - Airport Blvd.
Airport Blvd - Justin Ln.
Justin LL,.- Guadalupe St.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
MNR .2
Howard Ln_LCR 175 1 PanneLLn — Brushy Cr@gk Rd. MAD 4
—. __ —_ —__ 'Brushy Creek Rd,- Davis SPdn� ;_Rd. MAD 4
-- L Darts SPJinSis Rd. -RM620 MAD4
__. __ —__ __ RM ¢2Q= McNeII Rd_ MAD
McNeil Rd_ FM 1325 MAD 6
FM 1325 -JH 351NL_
_ IH 35 (N) Dessau Rd._
_ Dessau Pa- SN_130
___
______ !Dessau
130 = Hants Branch
Johnny Mortis Rd__ - l US 290 (E) - Loyola In. s-u snAses MAD 4 LOW
Loyola Ln. - FM 969 MNR 2 MAU 4 LOW
MAU 24
J08 Io Rtl•1 US 1t1$ (a, McNeII Rd. MNR 2
PondliAggs Rd. McNeil Rd. _Great Hills Tr. MAD 4
.Justin Ln. — I Burnet Rd - Woodrow Ave, MNR 2
MNR2
Lake Austin Blvd. Enfield Rd. - Red Bud Tr. MN112
R =d Buccposilion Blvd. MNR 4
Lyposttion Blvd,-Loop 1 MNR 4
L k_Qllne BIvdy __ FM 2243 - CR 275 —
Neenah Ave. CR 275 - New Hope Rd. .—
New Hope Dr. 1431
FM 1431 - Buttercup Creek Blvd__ —
_8ulterc_up Creek Blvd. - USJ-LN) MAD 4
US 183 (N) - Howard Ln. I MAD 0 4
Howard In. - Great Oaks Dr. —
MAD 4
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
MAD 4
Existing
Existing
L W L_ B�
LOW B
LOW B
L
MAD6 LOW
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
LOW
MED
MAD MAD6 LOW
--F
MAU 4 LOW
MAD6 LOW
MNR 4 _LOW
MNR 4 LOW
MNR4 MED
Ex6tin_p_ MED
Bilnp MED
MAD HIGH
MAD 4 HIGH
MAD � _ HIGH
MAD 4
AD DD
MAD - - 1 OW
—LOW
MAD 6 LOW
MAD4 MED
B
B
0
B
B
B
See Scofield NIdg9 P wy.
See Scofield Ridge Pkwy.
Adopted June 12, 2000
HEA= 01- 2
HEA- 01- 3
-- •-- --- ---._ — _ HEA 01 4
_ HEA- 01- 3
See — Scofield Ridge P ltwy:
JOH- 01- 1
Add ramp for northbound access to Loop 1
Project ID
11
HOW -Old
HOW - -0I- 2
HOW -01- 3
HQW -Pl —
HOW -01- 5
HOW -01- 6
JOH- 01- 2
JOL- 01- 1
JOL- 01- 2
JUS- 01- 1
JUS- 01- 2
LAK- 01- 1
LAK- 0 2
LAK- 01- 3
LAK- 02- 1
LAK- 02- 2
LAK_02 = 3
LAK- 02- 4
LAK- 02- 5
LAK- 02_ 6
IAK 02 7
LAK- 03- 1
LAK- 03- 2
Riverside Dr. - Pleasant Valley Rd. MNR 2 MNR 4 I LOW
Lai< _Ur___ M_ Lohman's Crossing Rd. AD 4
ExistIng MED -- LAK - - �, -�
Lohman's Crossing Rd. - RM 62E MAO 4 lExlnina MED
LAK- 05- 2
MAD 4 -}— Existing LOW TOX- 275- 1
MAD 4 I MAD 6 MAD 8 LOW Preserve I(OW for MART — �(__ 275- _2
MAD 4 ELesting MAD 8 LOW Freserve ROW for MAUS - 1E 2757
MAD4
D 4 MAD6 MAD LOW - -- -- — ' - - - - -" T_X _. 275 -_4
MA MAD6 MAD8 LOW ___ ____ JEX_275- pr 5
MAD 4 MAD 6 MAD 8 LOW TEX- 2Z5 6_
7-16 Printed on 6/30100
LAK- 04- 1
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway Segment
1 2
I Existing r.rw
1997 812007
3 , 4
CAMPO2025 Plan
Project ID it
11
Adopted
2025 I 2025
Piro ' Needs
5 6
Area
Euviron
Sensitivity
7
Area
Envlron
Justice
S..11h*
8
Metro
Bike
Route
System
9
Remarks
I
I 10
MAD 6
_ _. _
Guadalupe S1,34th St.
34th St. - 29th Sl.
29th St. - MLK Blvd.
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAU 4
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 4
.
Existing
IstlrI
Existing
Exist1 •
Existi
MAD 6
MAD 6
LOW
i �
-
TEX- 275- 7
TEX- 275•. 8
— ___ _
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LQW
LOW
— _
L
TEX- 275- 9
TEX- 275- 10
TEX- 276-• 11
TEX- 276- 12
TEX- j75- 13
MLK Blvd - Eg eld Rd.
Enfield Rd. - W 5th St.
W. 5th St. - Riverside Dr.
Riverside Dr. - Barton Sort s Rd.
—� Bo rjpn Sp!5gS Rd. - Manchaca Rd
MAD 6
LOW
TEX- 275_14
TEX- 275-: 15
1 Manchoca Rd- US 29() (WT
MAD
MAD 6
LOW
LOW
Lavy_ca St. I MLK BNd. - 11th St.
MAU 4
Is�1pg
- -- - - --
LAS -�j j
LAV- 01- 2
11th St. - Ces4R Chavez
MAU 4
MNR 2
Existing
MNR 2
LOW
LexUliton St. 1Blake
LOW
8
Manor- FM 973 (new)
LEX- 01- 1 '
LlmeSreek Rd.
Anderson MIO Rd. - FM 2769
MNR 2
Existing
HIGH
B
UM- 01- 1
Ltttlp Road
FM 973 - Klmbro Rood
MNR 2
MAD 4
= LOW
B
-
UT- 01- 1 1
1211111111111MI
—
—
MM
M D •
MAD 4
MAD 4
Little Elm Trail
Arterial A - US 183 (A)
LOW
UT- 02- 1 I
US 183 (A) - LJS 183
U S. 183 - Lakellne
LOW
LOW
LIT- 02- 2
UT- 02- 3
Lohman's Q... • Rd
Hurst Creek Rd. - L)
MNR 2
MAD 4
MAD 4
MED
B
LOH- 01- 1
,
Lohman Ford Rd.
M 1 • 1 - ] gsgt r Ford Rd,
MNR 2
MAD 4
MED
B
LOH- 02- 1
Sylvester Ford Rd. - Lake Travis
S�rkmLdale Rd. - US 183 (I)
ISW; AIME
MAU 4
.
M 4
Existing
MED
LOW
B
i
LOH- 02- 2
LOY - 1 '
Loyola Ln./
Decker Lake Rd.
US 183 N) Johnny Morris Rd.
MNR 2
_
MAD 4
MAD 6 LOW
LOY- 01- 2 i
Johnn Mortis Rd. - FM 3177
MNR 2
MNR 2
MAD 4
MAD 4
LOW
L OW
0—
0■
LOY- 01- 3 ..
FM 3177 - FM 973
LOY- 01- 4
FM973- Gilbert Rd.
MAD
LOW
LOY- 01- 5 )
Gilbert Rd.- Taylor Ln.
MAD 4
L OW
LOY- 01- a 6
Manor Rd
IH 35 (N) - Cherrywood Rd.
MNR 2
MAU 4
LOW , B
MAN- 01- 1
Chenywood Rd. - Airport Rd.
MALI 4
MAU4
Existing
MAD6
LOW . B
LOW • B
MAN- 01- 2
MAN -01- T
Airport Rd. -51st St.
5151 St. - Springdale Rd.
MAU 4
I
Existing
MAD 6 LOW v 8
MAN- 01- 4
McKinney.Eol s Pkwv./
(15 183 (5) - Burleson Rd.
MAD 4
AD4
MAD 4
EIMINI♦u
®MAD
—
—
MM'
Usti
Existlne
MAD 4
AD
MAD4
MAD 4
M D �
MED
(uEMNIMINI
MED
MED
MCK- 01- 1
Iv1�01 _
�
MCK - 01- 3_
�2n Rdls Log •
: :r -•nl•n rte-
Onion Creek - William Cannon Dr.
Wllllom Cannon Dr. - Colton Bluff Springs Rd.
—
MCIC - . Q1 - 4
MCK - 01- 5
Colton Bluff Springs Rd.- Slaughter Ln.
Slaughter Ln.- FM 1327
D
MED
MED
MCK - 01- 6
fM1327 -CR1Q5
CR 105 - Stud y Boundary (Sl
MCK- 01- 7-
MCK- 01- 8
_
McNeil Rd. /MCNelI Cutoff
Old LampossesJr. - Vauoon Dr.
MAD 4
r AD 6
HIGH
MAN -01- 1
Sipicewood Springs Rd.)
Yauoon Dr. - US 183 (N)
MAD 4
MAD .
G. B
MCN- 01- 2
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
Adopted June 12, 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
7 17
Printed on 6130/00
Philtre 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Tabk
Roadway Segment
1 2
Existing 4 8www.
1997 Bs 2007
3 14
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Project B38
11
I
Adopted 1 I Area
2025 1 2025 I Environ
Plan 1 Needs Sensitivity
5 1 6 I 7
Area 1 Metro
Environ Bike
Jostke Route
sraaaby System
8 I 9
Remarks
10
__ US 183 (N).= Panner Ln._, MAD 4
MAD 6_
AD 6
MAD 6
EXP 6 HIGH
EXP_8 HIGH
EXP 8 HIG
HIGH
HIG.
MAD 8 _ •
a ®: LOW
m"• c� •yy
LOW
_ LOW
LOW
_
_armer Ln. - Howard Ln. . MAD 4
-_M
B - -- -
MCN- 01- 3
CN- 01- 4_
!Howard Ln — CR 172JQuIck HIII Rd.
CR 172 /QUlck HIII Rd Ili 35 [N)
MAU 2
B — --
MCN - 01- 5
—__[ -
IH 35(N)
MAU 4
MAD 6
B
MCN -OI- 6
. _
:BRIH35 ru u4rMAUx
MAD
—
B
MCN - 01- 7
Metric Blv4lhermal Dr,
Wells Branch Pkwv. - Scofield RI.. • M •
Sc d Rir�1e Pkwv. FM 73
MA• &_
+
--
-I-
MET_ 01- m 1
- /Parmer Ln, MAD 4
FM 734(Parm .MAD
MAD 6
.
AD 6
MAD 4
_
B
MET- 01- 2_
Ln. roker Ln. M • D 4
Broker
B ---
MET-. 01- 3
.. - _ -- ---
-__ -_ -_ --
___Rundbei
Ln_ - ftutland_Dr. NR 4
Rutland Dr. Ln
g --
MET- 01- 3
I - arridbei -
In=
_ -
8
ME: 01 _S
L1SM(N) MAD 4
Existing
MAD 4
Existing_
Existing
M AD 4
MAD 4
MAD
- -- _
1
MET- 01- 6
Mante Qdrs Blvd.
—I-
�Grove
US 290 s! LQgp 1 MAD 4 En
jHIGH
_ — --
_ _
M9N -01- 1
Montopolis Dr.
______ _
Blvd. - SH 71 (E) MAD 4 —
MED
+
B
See Grove Blvd.
SH 71 (E) - Burleson Rd. MAD 4
MAD 6 MED
MON -02- 1
MON-02- 2
New Hope Dr. /CR 181/
CR 276/CR 277
FM 1431 _E. Gann HIII Dr. MAD
HIGH
E. Gann HIII Dr. - CR 278 /Bagdad Rd. ELM MAD4
CR278 /Bgadad Rd. -US183 N MAD
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
_
NEW- 01- 1
,[JEW- 01- 2
NEW - 01- 3
NEW- 01- 4
NEW- 01- 5
183_(N).S 183 (A) MNR 2 MAD6
MAD 6
MAD 4
MAD4
_
US 1:_ • _CR 185 M R 2 •
CR185- Partner Ln. MNR2
HIGH
Parmer Ln. -Sam Bass Rd. MNR 2
MAD 4
HIGH
NEW - 01- 6
$amass Rd. Wyomina Sp rj21 s Dr. -
MNt
HIGH
HIGH
NEW- 01- 7
NEW -1_8
:
North Loop BMdd_
_Hancock Dr. /E. 53rd St
gp1=.Bumet Rd. NR 4 INEN
Burnet R&
Existing
Existing
Exisj g
Existing -
MNR 2
MAD 6
MAD4
OW
LOW
B
NQR- 01- 1
-N, Lamar Blvd. MNR 4
B
NQR -_01- 2
Lamar Blvd. - Alrp_pR81vd. MNR 4 MN
B
NOR- 01- 3
Northeast Dr.
US 290 (E) - Manor Rd. MNR 2
,LOW
LOW
+
B
NOR - 02- 1
=
Nutty Brown Rd
US 290 W - FM 1826 MNR 2
HIGH
__-
I
_NUT-
01- 1
0 Conner Dr.
Howard Ln. - Great Oaks Dr. MAD _4
RM620- Arterial C MAD4 NM
_ M D
MED
B
B
OCO -01- '1
OCO -01- 2
'
Oid Setiig�Btvd
IN 35 Greenhill Dr. East MAD 4 MN
MAD
L QW
B
OLD_ 01_
Greenhill Dr,_East - FM 1460 MAD 4
MAD 4
Exlstl g
-
L OW
LOW
- --
1
PLD- 01- - 2
Oltorf St. ___
S. Lamar BNd_IH 35 (S) MAU 4
_ -- - -
OLT- 01- 1
III-135 (S) - Pleasant Vat y Rd. MAU/MAD 4
Existing
MAD 6
MAD 6
LOW
OLT- 01- 2
Pleasant Vail Rd. - Montopolls Dr. MAD 4
Existing
AU 4
MALZ4
MAD 2
LOW
_ --
OLT- 01- 3
_Park St.
Lakellne BlvdLI S 183 (N) MNR 2 MAU 4
HIGH
HI G H
LOW
' " -" - - "' -'
PAR- 01- -'1-
-------
US 183 (_N
) - US 183 (A) MNR 2 MAU 4
US 1183_(..A1.- _ Arterial A M AD
-- ---- -
PAR-01- 2
ArtedolA - ArfedoIB I-
MAD2 LOW
__�__ -
PAR- 01- 3
PAR- 01- 4
ParkfQldg_-_ —
Broker Ln. - Rundbera In.
MNR 2/4
MNR 4
IMAD 4 _
IMAD 4J_
LOW
-1F- B
- - - -- - --
_. • Rundbeg1 n. - Peyton Gin Rd.
LOW
1 B _
- - -- - - - --
PAR-_02._ 1
PAR - 02- 2
5 Trensportatlon Plan
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
7 -18
Adopted June 12, 2000
Printed on 8/30 /00
Figure7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway Segment
1 2
Existing
1997
3
e _ ._ .
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Pro MI
Adopted I Area
2025 2025 I EnvIron
Plan Nees Sensitivity
5 6 y
Area
Envtron
Justice
nd
rill
ro
Brice
to
System
I
Remarks
10
ay 2007
4
L 331 3 333 3313;
Zia, 1o, o , 4 o, a
H H 1 m l m L
Pearce Ln._ _
FM 973 - Ross Rd.
MNR 2
MAD 4
_
-
1
- -- "—
PEA- 01- 1
_
R.d
Ross . Shy Boundary
MNR 2
MAD 4
PEA- 01- 2
_-
Peyton Gin Rd.
J
US 183 (N)- N. Lamar Blvd.
MNR 4
Existing
t--
PEY- 01- - 1
Pgug]er Ln./
Greenlawn Blvd. - FM 685
MNR 0/2
MAD 4
{
-
PFL- 91 - 1
PFL_.91_ 2
PFL- 01- l• 3
Pflugerv0IQ.00p
FM 685 - Harris Branch Pky .
MNR 2
MAD 4
— ___
I Harris Branch Pkwv. - FM 973
MNR 0/2
MAD 4_1_
PflugeMge Egstl2d. I_FM685 -SH1 D(N)
SH 130[N)-Cameron Rd
MNR 2
IMNR2
.MADE
PF L-
_
PR; 02_ 3
PFL- 02- 4
MAD 3_
__
CameroORd. - Decker Lane
MNR 2
MAD 6
- -- -
Decker Lane - FM 973
MNR 2/0
MAD 6
LOW
B
m� m mim
Pleasant Valley Rd./
Todd Ln.
7th St. - Cesar Chavez
MAU 4
MAU 4
Existing
LOW
-
RE- 01- 1
Cesar Chavez - Colorado River _
Existing
LOW
LOW
PLE- 01- 2
CokraCo River - Riverside Dr.
MAU 4
MAD 4
PLE- 01- 3
Riverside Dr. - atoll St.
MAD 4
-
MAD 0/4
MAD 014
Existing
MAD 4
MAD 4
LOW
MED
MED
8
B
B
PLE- 01- 4
PLE- 01- 5
PLE- 01- 6
Oltorf St. - SH 71 (E)
SHIED-St. Elmo Rd.
St. Elmo Rd. - WIOk_tm C annon Dr,
MAD 4
B
PLE 01 7___,
William Cannon Dr. - Onion Creek Dr.
MAD 4
MAD 4
__MED
MED
B
_
PLE- 01- 8
Onion Creek Dr. - Slaughter Ln.
-
MAD 4
MED
B
PLE- 01- 9
Slaughter in - FM 1327
-
MAD 4
MED
B
PLE- 01- 10
Qulnlan1pflc .
RM 620- Selma Hugh,
MNR2
MNR 2
MAD 4
HIGH
B
QUI- 01 = 1 - _.
QUI- 01- 2
Selma H thes Rd. - Lakeline Pk.
MAD 4
HIGH
B
Red Bud Tr.
FM 2244 - Westlake Dr.
MNR2
MNR 2
Etdsfing I
Fxhllna
MAU 4
HIGH
HIGH
B
B
RED- 01- 1
RED- 01- 2
Westlake Dr. - Lake Austin Blvd
Red RNer St.
45th St. -MLK Blvd,
MAU 2L
MAU 2/4
MAU 3/4
Existing
Exist
Existing
LOW
LOW
LOW
RED - 02- 1
RED- 02- 2
RED - 02- 3_
MLK Blvd. - E. 5th St.
_E _ It St. - Cesar Chavez
PtV lace Blvd.
Four Points Dr. - RM 2222
MAU 2
MAD 4
HIGH
RN- 01- 1
RM 2222. Lovebird ID.
MAD 4
MAD 4
HIGH
_
RN- 01- 2
Riverside Dr. S. Lamar Blvd. - S. 1st St.
MAD 4
MAU 4
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 6
Existing
Existing
Exlgtina
Exlstina
MAD 8
MAD 6
MAD 6
MAD 6
MAD 6
1
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
+
'
RIV- 02- 1
RN— 02- 2
RN- 02- 3
RN =0 2_A_
RN- 02- 5
I S.
1st St. - S. Cress Ave.
S. Conaress Ave. - Newning._Ave.
Newnina Ave. - IH 35 (5)
IH 35 (S) - Lakeshore Dr.
I
Lakeshore Dr. - SH71(E)
,MAD
MAD 8
ILOW
+
-
- ° --
-
- - - ----
RN- 02- 6
005- - 01 - 1
Rosewood Ave./
IH 35 (N) - Airport Blvd.
MNR 2
Existing
LOW
— --- -- -- - - -- --
Oa Springs /11th St.
Airport Blvd. - Springdale Rd.
1MNR
MNR2
2
Existtna I
MAD 4 1— !LOW
LOW
v
ROS- 01- 2
71 - Pearce Ln.
13_1
ROS— 02- 1
Ross Rd. ISH
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
Adopted June 12, 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
7 19
Printed on 0130/00
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Teble Existing
1997
Roadway Segment
1 2 3
c—
By MD
4
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Project ID
11
Adopted
2025
Plan
5
2025
Needs
6
Area
Environ
Sensitivity
7
Area
Environ
Justice
sewadry
S
Metro
Bike Remarks
Route
System
9 10
---
uAD 4
T
Rowe In__ _ _ FM - Arterial A _
___ ___ ___ Arterial A- Decker Ln_
MNR 2
_
LOW
— {—
,
B _ —•- - —
RQW_ 01- 1
MNR 2
- - - --
B_
ROW- 01- 2
- - -- _ ----
Rundbenjn./ ___1 FM 1325- Metric Blvd
—
M4
1
LQW
B ' —� - - - --
RUN= _01 - - 1 —
RUN- .2
RUN- D1- 3
RUN- 01- 4
RUN- 01- 5
Ferguson Lt1,-________tMe_hic BlvO. _N Lamar BNSi._ ,_.
MAD 4
Existing
B
N. Lamar Blvd. -11-1.35_(N)
MAD 4
F�klsting
MAD 4
MAD .
LOW
B
IH 35 (N) - Cameron Rd1Dessau Rd.
MAD 4
MAD 6
LOW
B
_ _
Cameron Rd. /Dessau Rd. - SH 130 (N)/Ari. A( .C.)
MNR 2/0
MAD 4
MAD 4 - 1__
MAD 4
MAD 6 _
MAD 6
LOW
B
City of Austin and Travis County to work out alignment.
- --
LOW _�
LOW
MED
--_ -
- '
B
- -'
Sam Bass20. — -_ I FM 2243= New Hope Dr. MNR
2/0
MAU 2
MAU
01_ 1
SAM -01- 2_
SAM- 01- 3
SAM- 01- 4
— ._— ____ . New_HopeDr. - FM 1431
— __ _ FM Oa. FM 3406
____ FM 3406- 11135_(N)
_ ______
MED
SAN- 01- 1
San,Lacinto Blvd. MIX BNO,_Cesar Chavez
MAD 4
Ex din.
LOW
Li
l' m Im
_
.
Scofield Ridge pkwy. Fu 1325 - IH 35 (N)
MAU 2
MAD 4
6
LOW
SCO- Di- 1
Gepg.Ln.___,_ IH35(N)- Dessau Rd.
!Dessau Rd_ 8HJ (N) - --
MAU 2
MAD 4
MAD 4
_MAD
ee' owar. ane
LOW
_
_
-- _SCO-
01- 2
1130 (N) - Hams Branch P
MAU 2
LOW _
LOW
SCO- 01- 3
_4SH _
_ Harris Branch Pkwv. - FM 973
OLMNR
SCO- 01- 4
____4 _
Schultz Ln.
H4,_,5_P1= Pryuperin.
=NI
MIMI
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 6
MAD 4
—
==
AD 6 MIll
MAD 6 ■
Exist
MAD 6
MAD .
Exlstin.
Exlsflna
MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 6
MAD 6
i• QQ�� _�
(6166I2!2 § §§ ,b,6 § § .§ .§I 6II
MAD 6
—
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
MD
MED
MED
MED
0= =d= I m
LL
_ --
SCH• Ol- 1
SIauohter Ln.[Mddle Rd,_jM
__
1826 - Broglgl j
SLA_ 01_L___1__.
51
SLA 01-
SLA- 01- 4
5!01- 5
5ro_die Ln. - Mancho p Rd
_
Manchaca Rd. - IH 35 (S)
IH 35 (S) ; Onion Creek
_
Onion Creek - Bluff Sodom Rd.
_
Bluff Springs Rd. - US 183($)
Si �q 01:___3
SlA Ol 7
SLA- 01- 8
US 183 (S) - FM 973
FM 973 - SH 130
Southwest Pkwv.
Boston Lane)
SH 71 - wit= Cannon
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
■
m C1 co
SOU_01- 1
SOU- 01- 3
William Cannon - US 290 (Mt)
SpIcewood Springs Rd.
US 183 (N) - Old Lampassasy,
MAU 2 MAD 4
MAD 4
MAD 4
D 4
MAD 4
See McNeil (toad
-LFOrs4hla Dr,)
Loop 360 - Nee_I jLPL
SPI- 01- 1
,.Neeiev Dr. - Mesa Or
Mesa Dr. -Hart ln.
Hart Ln. - LogpJ
6
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
_
B
SPI 01
SPI- 01- 3
SP± 01- 4
Springdale Rd.
US 290 (E) - US 183 (N)
MAD LOW
SPR 01-
_ _
US 183 (N) -Manor Rd.
MAU 4
i
I
1
I
IS I aL
ml i 61§I
_1
SPR- Ol- 2
SPR - 01 - 3
_ 1
STJ_ 0
Manor Rd. - Cesar Chavez
MAU 4
i
0
Im'
_
St_Johns Av_e.
N. Lamar Blvd. - IH 35 (M
IH 35 (N) - Cameron Rd.
MNR 4
I
- —
MNR 4
MNR 2
I
01-___2 -
0 1
STJ- 01- 3
Cameron Rd. - Berkman Dr.
MAU 4 I
_
_
_STJ-
I
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
7 20
Adopted June 12, 2000
Printed on 6130/00
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway Segment
1 2
Existing
1997
3
e- --
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Project ID*
11
I
Adopted
2025
Plan
5
2025
Needs
I 6
Area
Environ
Sensitivity
i 7
Area
I Envlron
Justice
Sensitivity
8
Metro
Bike
Route
System
9
Remarks
I 10
By MC
14
Stassney Ln.
West Gate Blvd. - S. Congress Ave.
MAD 4
MAD 6
Eidson •
Existin •
a c
LOW
LOW
I •
B
B
STA- 01- 1
STA- 01- 2
S. Congress Ave. - IH 35 (S)
IH 35 (S) - Pleasant Valley Rd.
MAD 4
MAD 6
—
Exist n •
Exlstln •
MAD 4
LOW
L • W
LOW
B
B
B
STA- 01- 3
STA- 01- 4
STA- 01—, 5
Pleasant Volley Rd. - Nuckots rossi • Rd
Nuckols Crosslna Rd. - Burleson Rd.
-
Steck Ave.
esa Dr. - Low 1
EIMIll
MAD 4
MAD 4
LOW
LOW
B
B
STE 01- 1
L� 1 - Burnet Rd.
STE- 01- 2
Taylor I.n, /Old Klmbro Rd.
• 41 E) jittlg_Pd.
MAD 4
LOW
TAY- 01- 1
TAY- 01- 2
Ltiti • Rd. - Blake Manor Rd.
lu�
MNR 2
AD 4
MAD 4
LOW
LOW
N
_ -
Blake Manor Rd. - FM 969
TAY- 01- 3
Thomas Sprinas Rd. /Old Bee
Southwest Pkwv. - Circle Or
MNR 2
MAD 4
HIGH
THO. 01- 1
,Caves r ,Qravls Cook Rd.
Toro Canton Rd.
Westlake Dr. (N) - Westiak= Dr.
_
Existing
MED
=MI
� _
TOR- 01- 1
Tuscan_ /ay_
Runcli Rtl. to Sp_pn dale Rd. /Ferguson
rpm
MAD 4
7113- 01- 1
Von Quintus Rtl,[
SH 71 - Moore Rd.
MNR 2 1
MNR
W
VON- 01- 1
Blacketin,
Moore Rd. - US 183_0)
MNR 2
Existing
LOW
VON- 01- 2
RM 2244- Tamarron Blvd.
MNR 4
MAD 4
Exis
Existing
Exlstina
MED
MED
■
WAL,_91:_a_
WAL_01- 2
Tarlton Ln.
Torflarron Blvd. - Looa 360
Wells Branch Pkwy./
FM 1325 -1H 35 (N)
MAD 4
Exlstina
MAD 8
LOW
WEL- 01- 1
N�rthtown Pkwv.
11135 (14) - Heathnwllde Blvd.
MAD 4Mu 2 MAD 4
MAD 6
LOW
WEL- 01- 2
Heotherwllde Blvd. - Dessau Rd.
—
MAD 6
LOW
WEL- 01- 3
Dessau Rd. - SH 130 (N
—
AD 6
LOW
WEL- 01-
SH 130 (N) - Cameron Rd.
MNR 2/0
MAD 6
LOW
WEL -9]-_3
WEL- 01- 6_
Comeron Rtl. - Decker Lane
MNR 2 0
MAD 6
LOW
(Acker Lanni- FM 973
AD 6
LOW
WEL-_91_-
West Gate B vsd
Loop 360 - US 2,)
AD e 4
e AD 4
IGH
WES- Q1- - 1
US290(W)- Stassney Ln.
Stassney Ln. - Cameron Loop
MAU
MAD CIA
—
MAD
MAD 4
MAD 4
LOW
LOW
LOW
WES- 01- 2
WES- 01- 3
Cameron L000 - Slaughter Ln.
WES- 01- 4
Y
Westlake.J
Loop 360_oro Convon>�.
Toro Convon Rd. - Red Bud Tr.
MAD/MNR 4
MNR 2
Existin•
Fxlstina
HIGH
HIGH
WES- 02 - 1
WES- 02- 2
West 1:411( Hlah Dr.
Red Bud Tr. - FM 2244
MNR 2
MA
Existino
MAD 4
HIGH
LOW
WES- 02- 3
WES- 02- 4
FM 22 - Camo Craft
Camp Craft - Loop 360
MAU 2 MAD 2
MAD 4
LOW
WES- 02- 5
Wilke Ln /Kelly Ln.
SH 45S - FM 973
MNR 2
MAD 4
LOW
WIL- oi- 1_
William Cannon Dr./
WIL- 02- 1
WIL- 02 - a
Southwest Pkwv. - US 250 TAN
US 29121Wj Brodie Ln.
MAD 6
MAD 6
Existing
Existing
MAD 8
HIGH
LOW
NQn.Blsiff Dr.
Brodie Ln. - Manchaca Rd.
MAD 4
MAD 6
LOW
WIL- 02- 3
Manchaca Rd. - Pleasant Valley Rd.
Pleasant Valley Rd - Runnlna Water Dr.
MAD 6
MAO toNAO2
MAD 6
Existing
MAD 6
_
LOW
LOW i
WIL- 02- 4
WIL- 02- 5
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
Adopted June 12, 2000
721
Printed on 6/30/00
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
Adopted June 12, 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
7 -22
Printed on 6/30/00
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Project ID it
11
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Tabk
Roadway Segment
1 2
Existing 1
1997 By2007
I
3 i 4
Adopted
2025 2025
Plan Needs
1 5 6
Area
Positron
Sensitivity
7
Area
Environ
Justke
Smithy
8
Metro
Bike
Route
System
9
Remarks
i 10
__ __ __ _ .. RunningWafi Dr,_ McKinne Fal Pkwy.
—
MA.1 5 1 LOW
B
yyIL_ 0-6
wk- 02- 7
1 1 McKinney Fal0 Pkwy. - FM 812
—
MAD 6 LOW -j
B
Realrnme (r be set by At2ln & Travv1 Co.
W lr1 sw Rd,/1N _2411) StL __
-- .—__ _ _
. _._______ __ _
Woadward $f_LUghlsey Rd.
_EMOO tlon Blvd _long! . ___, _—
MNR 4
MNR 4
MNR 4
Exlstlnp _ LOW_1.
._
WIN- 1
Wood: Wood: N. Lamar Blvd.
N. Lamar Blvd _Guadalupe St.
Ing— _.IMAD 6 + L_OW
= Existing_ LOW
WIN - 01- 2 -
WIN- 01- 3 -
S. Congress Ave. - IH 35 (S)
35 (Sy_SH 71(E)
—
1MNR 2_4
.MNR4
_ _— _ -_
!Existing_ MNR 4
LOW
B
W00-01- 1_
Existing MAD4
LOW
B
W0001- 2
_
�IH
r
-
Wyoming Springs_Dr.
Arterial G.- FM 1431 —
'
MAD4
H IGH
MO- 01- _
YO
W-OI- 2 2
WY0 -01- 3
FM 1431 -FM 3406
p QADQ
HIG
HIGH
FM -RM620 4MAD4/0
MAD
HIGH
RM620- Arterial C
MAD 4
HIGH
WY0-01- 4
I 1
Exislln •
MAD4 MAD6
LOW
LOW
SfF 01- 1
SFI- 01- 2
S. First St.
Cesar Chavez - Barton Springs Rd,
(MAU AL
MNR4
Barton Springs Rd.- US 290(W)
4 US290(W) -
StassneyIn. MNR
MAD 4 MAD 6
LOW -
SFI- 01- 3
SFI- 01- 4
Stassney In. - William Cannon Or. MNR 4
LOW
William Cannon Dr. - S Ln.
MNR 4
MI Exist •
LOW
5F1- 01,__5
SR- 01- 6
Lry, FM 1626
—
MNR 4
HIH1 H
.Fittt�$y, — __ — __ __
I Slaughter
MAU 4
MA 4
MAU 4
MNR
AU 4
MAU 4
MAU 4
tumn....0177—
4
MAU 4
=
TLpgp 1 -N. Lamar Blvd_ --
Existing
LQW
FIE- 01- 1
N. L gr Boyd,_ Trinity St.
Exlsfinst
LOW =III
FL 011 =2
FIE- 01- 3_
—
Trinity.St - IH 35 (N)
IH S5 /N) chiconSt.
NM Exlstli
LOW NM
MAU 2
LOW IN 5055 se 'on su•ec o•esgn• =ermna'on.
-
FIE- 01- 4
—MEN • Foot connection 10 M 35. Include sidewalks.
■I
ange pa ng, an• • eways.
MIIII
Sbdh St.
Loo Lamar Blvd.
pl
N. Lamar BWd,= �loradip St.
MEM ExIstIn•
L•W
SIX - _01- 1
SIX 01 2
MN Exist! •
LOW
Colorado St. - IH 35 (N)
■ Exhtln •
MIN
LOW B
SIX- 01- _2
Severn ih$f
Guadylu�e St. - IH 35 (N)
MAD 4
MAD 4
02—E B
LOW o B
LOW 0 B
LOW
SEV- 01- 1
SEV- 01- 2
SEV- 01- - 3
EIG- 01- 1
IH35(N)- Pleasant Valley Rd. IMAp(MAU
Pleasant Valley Rd. - Airport Blvd. IMAU
Guadalupe St. - IH 35 (N)
MI
1=11ExIsffng
Eighth St.
.
Eleventh St,
Guadalupe St. -1H 35 (N)
vt■U •
Exhfin •
LOW
ELE- 01- 1
--
Tweigb St
N. Lamar Blvd. - West Ave.
uNR 4
M= arts •
LOW
TWE- 01- 1
West Ave. - Colorado St.
MAD 4
MAD 4
MNR
MIN Exlstl
_Existing
Mil Exlstin •
� Existin,
Exisfln s
LOW =
TWE- 01_2
TWW- 1- 'j
1WE- 01- 4
San Jacinto Blvd. - IH 35 (N)
LOW p
L OW 0 B
IH35(N)- Springdale Rd.
Twenty -sixth St.
Guadalupe St. - Whitt Ave.
MAD 4
LOW
1W 02- 1
TWE- 02- 2
Whitis Ave. - San Jacinto Blvd.
4
MAD 6
LOW
San Jacinto Blvd, - IH 35 (N) ' MAD 6
'MAD
MAD 6
• W IIME
LOW 0
1WE- 0_ TI
TWE- 02- 4
IH35(N)- Laf
MAD 4 IM Existing
Lafayette Ave. - Manor Rd.
MAD4 1111111Exisffne
MAD6
LOW a
1WE- 02- 5
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
Adopted June 12, 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
7 -22
Printed on 6/30/00
Figure 7.1
2025 Roadway Plan Table
Roadway
1
Segment
Existing c--m. Adopted Area
1997 9y2007 2025 2025 Environ
Plan Needs Sensitivity
3 4 5 6 7
CAMPO 2025 Plan
Area Metro
Envlron Bike
Justice Route
Sensitivity System
8 9
Remarks
10
Thi -iw St _ BaIC9niiTsDr. = Exposition Blvd. _ �MNR4
1111 M e7ah St�[___ Exm 1
osltion Blvd,_ Loop [ MAU 4.
Th�lghth l/2 SJ _ Loop 1= JeJe_fferson St. MAU 4�
Anchor Ln,,____ ___ Jefferson St _N_Lamar Bivd
_ _ N. Lamar Blvp,_,QUadalupe St. MAD 4
. i_Guad une St. - Duval St, MNR 2
_ __ ______ - - Duval St. - Red River St_ MNR 2/3
__ _jRed River St. - IH 35 (NJ MNR 2
IH 35 (N) Manor Rd. MNIf2/4
Forty -fifth St
R St N_ Lo Blvd. - Alr�ort Blvd. JMNR 2/3
Airport Blvd - 111 35 (N) MNR 4
IH 35 (N) - Manor Rd. MNR 4
- LManor Rd. - Springdale Rd. MNR 4
Springdale Rd. - US 183 (N) MAD 4
Key To Roadway Classifications
FWY
PKWY
EXPY
MAD
MAU
MNR
Freeway
Parkway
Expressway
Manor Arterial DMded
Manor Arterial UndMded
Minor Arterial
CAMPO 2025 Roadway Plan Table
Exisflnp_ ,
Existi�.
Existin
Ex _Da
ExlstIn
Ex
Existf
Existing
Fxistl • MAD 6
Burnet Rd. MNR4 Existing
Burnet Rd, - N..Lamar Blvd. MNR 4 Existing
Lamar Blvd. _Guadalupe St. MAD _Existing
..updolupe St. - A-ort Blvd. MNR 4 Willa_
_L
MNR 4
Existing
Existing
Existin
Ex
OW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
Low
LOW
LOW
LOW
B
The number after the roadway classification indicates the number of lanes. A'MAD'
designates a roadway divided either by a raised median, flush center left turn lone,
or a central drainage ditch. The choice of one or the other is to be made In the
roadway design and construcffon process.
Adopted June 12, 2000
Ol_ 1 i
THI- Ol_ — 2
TIE 01- 3
THI- 01- - 4
11-11- 01- 5
1141- 01- 6
THI- 01- 7
711- 01- '8
THI- 01- 9
FOR- 01- 1
- 01 =2
FOR- 01- 3 — ;
FOR- 01- 4
FIF- 02- 1
FIF -02_2
FIF-
FIF- 02- 4 t
FIF- 02- 5
Column 4. shows the adopted 2025 Plan.
Column 5.2025 Needs, shows roadway size needed based on demand analysis, without repaid to feasibility. This is shown for Infonnaflon only.
Column 6 ktdlcates the natural environmental sensitivity of the area through which each roadway passes. Criteria for high, medium
and low sensitivity and potential mitigation actions are described In Figure 3.5.
Column 7 indicates with a • • ' that the roadway segment Is adjacent to or Traverses a census tract that contains a majority population (50% +)
of minority and /or tow - Income persons (according to the 1990 Census), as further explained in Chapter 3.
Column 8 indicates wlh a B' that the roadway segment Is part of Metropolitan Bike Route System.
(MIS) Major Investment Study - me recommended cross section Is subject to the results of a molar investment study.
— Under the Existing 1997 column 1,' —' Indicates the existing condition of roadway as of 1997.
(NHS) National Highway System - Roadway Is Included In the National Highway System.
IH / BR IH Interstate Highway / Business Route Interstate Highway
SH State Highway
FM Fans to Market Road
RM Ranch to Market Rood
CR County Road
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 7 -23 Printed on 6/30/00
Project m s
11
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
This page intentionally blank.
7 -24 June 12, 2000
Williamson
County
l'
Blanco County
Burnet County
,
Caldwell N
County N.
Figure 7.2
CAMPO
2025 Roadway Plan
Plotted: June 28, 2000
Bastrop County
• Freeway /Parkway
• Expressway
Arterial
County Lines
CAMPO Boundary
Lakes
7 -25
Figure 7.3
Candidate Toll Road System Map
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 7 -26
June 12, 2000
This page intentionally blank
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 7 -27 June 12, 2000
8 Freight Facilities
Introduction
The efficient movement of freight is especially significant for the Austin metropolitan area,
where freight transporters and passenger vehicles utilize many of the same transportation
corridors. The Freight Movement Element addresses the federal requirements (TEA -21),
and significant aspects of roadway freight, rail freight, and air freight in the Austin
metropolitan area. A summary of the Commercial Vehicle Survey and the External Travel
Survey (part of the 1998 -1999 Travel Survey) are included as well as impacts of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Policies to enhance the movement of freight are
contained in Chapter 10G.
TEA -21 Requirements
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) of 1998 requires Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) to consider methods to enhance the efficient movement of
freight. Therefore, CAMPO staff supports funding for a comprehensive regional intermodal
Freight Movement Study to: 1) investigate the economic impact of traffic delays on
businesses that provide or require freight transport and shipping services, and 2) outline
objectives and strategies for improving the movement of goods throughout the region.
Roadway Freight
In the Austin metropolitan area the majority of freight is moved by truck (roadway freight).
Roadway freight is addressed in this document as being either through (non- stop), or local.
Through (non -stop) Roadway Freight. Through roadway freight pertains to trucks traveling
through the Austin metropolitan area, having no origin or destination there. Through
roadway freight movement on IH -35 causes traffic congestion during both non -peak and
peak hour periods, additional vehicle accidents, passenger injuries and fatalities, and
hazardous material emergencies. Interstates in many major cities include bypasses around
the CBD, and trucks hauling through freight on these Interstates can be diverted around
urban traffic congestion. This is not the case for Austin, where IH-35 passes through the
CBD. Approximately 50% to 60% of the total truck traffic on IH 35 in the Austin metropolitan
area were through trips, according to TxDOT 1996 traffic count data. Through roadway
freight traffic is expected to continue to increase steadily over the next five to ten years.
TxDOT estimates that there were 6,000 through trucks on IH 35 in 1996 with 12,000
forecasted by the year 2020. .
Local Roadway Freight Local roadway freight pertains to any trucks having an origin or
destination(s) inside the Austin metropolitan area. Austin has a higher volume of inbound
roadway freight than outbound freight. This is explained by the nature of Austin business.
The Austin metropolitan area is unique in that its businesses produce a lower- than - average
volume of outgoing freight. A large portion of the work force is characterized by young,
affluent households which are large consumers of sports and entertainment products,
electronic equipment, clothes, furniture, disposable paper products, building materials,
automobiles, and food and beverages. This level of consumption generates a high volume
of incoming freight trips in the Austin area.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 8 June 12, 2000
Previous findings indicated that a majority of consumable goods, especially food products,
enter Austin from the south (San Antonio), while durable goods tend to come from the north
(Dallas /Fort Worth). Almost all of this freight is transported on IH -35. Figure 8.1 illustrates
truck traffic increases on IH 35 from 1990 to 1996. Many of these trucks had an Austin
destination east of IH -35 since most commercial distribution centers (warehouses), as well
as UPS, Federal Express, the U.S. General Mail Facility, and all five (5) landfills are located
east 0111-1-35.
Figure 8.1
Truck Traffic on IH 35: 1990 —1996
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
.TRUCKS (South Station) - TRUCKS (North Station) 1
Source: The 1990 -1996 truck volume data was taken from the Vehicle Classification Reports provided by the
Texas Department of Transportation. Only commercial trucks with 2 -7 axles were considered for this category.
Numbers were taken from the MS-4 south station and the MS-190 north station, for 1990 -1995, and the HP 878
north station for 1996 since information from the MS -190 was no longer available.
Commercial Vehicle Survey
CAMPO, in cooperation with TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
selected Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (PB) to collect and summarize data
related to current travel characteristics in the expanded Austin metropolitan area (described
more fully in Chapter 2). One of the surveys was a Commercial Vehicle Survey to address
the need to develop more accurate and complete information on area trucking patterns.
The primary intention of the Austin area commercial vehicle study was to collect data that
quantified specific aspects or characteristics of the local truck population. This resulted in a
commercial truck survey with multiple purposes, which were to:
• Collect a small sample survey for the purpose of estimating proportions of commercial
vehicles operating in the study area by vehicle weight, fuel type, and more traditional
vehicle classification data.
• Survey commercial vehicles and quantify the number of trips made on a daily basis as a
means of developing local truck trip rates by vehicle classification.
• Estimate proportions of commercial truck trips occurring by time of day.
• Develop origin - destination data for creating a truck trip table and determining the likely
routing of commercial vehicles on the roadway network.
• Determine type of cargo transported.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 8-2 June 12, 2000
For the survey, only trucks used for commercial or public agency purposes with six or more
wheels on the ground and weighing 6,000 pounds or more were classified as commercial
vehicles. A total of 1,364 survey forms were sent to approximately 970 businesses that
agreed to participate, and 502 survey forms, or about 37 percent, were returned. Of the 500
usable forms, 63 percent were from public agencies. Figure 8.2 illustrates the commercial
vehicle trip purposes which shows that deliveries accounted for the majority (44.5 %) of
commercial vehicle trips, followed by pick ups (17.2 %). Figure 8.3 lists the type of activity at
truck trip destinations. Industrial type activities showed the highest percentage (23.2 %) of
truck trips followed by "other" types of activities (17.5 %) and retail activities (15.1%).
Figure 8.2
Commercial Vehicle Trip Purposes
Trip Purpose
No. of Trips Percent
Base Location/
Return to Base Location 448 11.8
Delivery 1,689 44.5
Pick up • 656 17.2
Vehicle Maintenance 92 2.4
Driver Needs 38 1.0
To Home 11 0.3
Other 360 9.5
No Response 499 13.2
Source: Draft Austin Area Travel Survey, Executive Summary. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &
Douglas, Inc., December 1999.
Figure 8.3
Type of Activity at Truck Trip Destination
Activity Type No. of Trips Percent
Office 195 5.1
Retail 575 15.1
Industrial 878 23.2
Medical 33 0.9
Educational 21 0.5
Higher Educational 40 1.0
Government 177 4.7
Residential 446 11.8
Other 663 17.5
Refused/Don't Know 269 7.1
Data not provided 496 13.1
Source: Draft Austin Area Travel Survey, Executive Summary. Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade &
Douglas, Inc., December 1999.
External Travel Survey
External surveys were also conducted to collect data on the number and characteristics of
person and vehicle trips, including trucks, through the study area (external- through trips)
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 8-3 June 12, 2000
and from local study area to outside the study area (external -local trips). CAMPO and
TxDOT established 27 survey sites for the study in the three - county area. The survey
focused on outbound trips from Hays, Travis, and Williamson counties since inbound and
outbound daily traffic volumes are generally balanced for the majority of roadway facilities
serving the study area. The data collected will be used primarily to update the next travel
demand model for the Austin metropolitan area, but will also be used for regional air quality
planning and modeling.
A total of 8,819 vehicles were surveyed; 8,206 were passenger vehicles and 613 were
commercial vehicles. The number of all vehicles surveyed represents an overall percentage
of 17.5% of the total outbound vehicles. Commercial vehicles surveyed account for 1.2% of
the total outbound vehicles. By individual station the percent of outbound total vehicles
surveyed ranged from 8.6% to 50.0% and 0.2% to 6.6% for outbound commercial vehicles.
Truck Traffic and the Effects of NAFTA
TxDOT's December 1998 report titled Effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement
on the Texas Highway System includes many important statistics on NAFTA freight
movement and its impacts on Texas highways and the IH-35 corridor, including the
following:
• The majority of NAFTA truck freight between the U.S. and Mexico is carried on Texas
highways (page 3).
• 67% of U.S. -bound trucks that were surveyed at 12 locations at or near the Texas -
Mexico border had destinations in Texas (page A -IX, Exhibit A- IX -2).
• NAFTA truck traffic comprised 16.5% of all truck traffic on Texas highways in 1996 (p.3).
• TxDOT's estimate of their optimal yearly highway needs for pavement and bridge
maintenance, vehicle mobility, and traffic safety due to NAFTA truck traffic alone was
$350 million for 1997, or 3.75% of the total estimated need of $9.32 billion (pages 6 and
27).
• Approximately 32% of statewide NAFTA truck traffic in 1996 occurred on IH -35 (p.4),
which is the most heavily traveled international freight corridor in Texas (page 29).
• On an average day in 1996, the 589 mile stretch of IH -35 within Texas carried 4.48
million vehicle -miles of truck traffic, and of that amount, 1.65 million vehicle miles (37 %)
were due to NAFTA truck traffic (page 20).
• In 1996, the estimated model volumes for all traffic count locations along the stretch of
IH -35 from San Antonio to Georgetown were at least 10,000 trucks per day (page A- I1:4).
Rail Freight
A high level of rail freight traffic moves by train through Austin non - stop. These trains must
decrease speed because of restrictive grades, slow speed curves, and the single -track
Colorado River bridge. The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) currently operates about 20 -25
through trains per day and is operating at about 90% capacity (including the Amtrak runs).
Improvements to the current Austin rail configuration may require building a modern double -
track bridge, or possibly rerouting the main tracks to enhance the movement of rail freight.
The level of local rail freight traffic (stopping) in Austin is relatively light compared to the total
volume of rail freight moving through the city. Goods carried into Austin by rail include beer,
lumber, paper, plastics, and some chemicals. Goods carried out of Austin are primarily
stone aggregates from mines and quarries in Georgetown, Austin and Marble Falls.
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 8 - 4 June 12, 2000
There are currently no facilities in the CAMPO service area for transferring freight between
trucks and trains. An important objective of the Freight Movement Study (see Introduction)
would be to determine the feasibility and impact (social, economic, and environmental) of
locating an intermodal freight operations facility in the Austin metropolitan area for
transferring freight between trains and trucks.
Air Freight
Austin serves as a regional air freight hub. The Austin metropolitan area sustains a very
high per capita volume of air freight, due largely to its business climate (high -tech and
academic). The demand for air freight movement is expected to continue to grow rapidly,
and current demand nearly exceeds the freight handling capacity of the newly- opened
Austin - Bergstrom International Airport.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 8 - 5 June 12, 2000
This page intentionally blank
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 8-6 June 12, 2000
9 Financial Plan
Introduction
The CAMPO 2025 Plan must be structured to provide resources for the transportation
projects which can be accommodated within the limits of reasonably available funding.
CAMPO, along with many other growing urbanized areas in Texas, faces a difficult dilemma:
the demand for roadway and highway capacity and intermodal transportation system
linkages far outpaces the growth of available funds from standard, traditional sources to
meet those demands. When combined with the other issues of growth management,
environmental protection and preservation, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
and local and regional economic development initiatives, the willingness and ability to plan
and construct the necessary facilities will depend more and more on local creativity and
innovation and less on reliance on the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to
solve the area's transportation needs. Many other urbanized areas in the country which
have previously experienced these same types of situations have begun to address the gap
between demand and available traditional funds by identifying and by implementing non-
traditional sources and pursuing transportation privatization programs.
TEA -21 Requirements
The CAMPO 2025 Financial Plan must meet the requirements of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21), which requires that the long range plan (CAMPO 2025):
"Include a financial plan that demonstrates how the long -range plan 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 such
techniques as value capture, tolls and congestion pricing."
Metropolitan Planning Rules issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation in 1999 to
amplify the TEA -21 requirements state:
"The (long range) plan shall ... (11) include a financial plan that demonstrates the
consistency of proposed transportation investments with already available and projected
sources of revenue. The financial plan shall compare the estimated revenue from
existing and proposed funding sources that can reasonably be expected to be available
for transportation uses, and the estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and
operating the total (existing plus planned) transportation system, over the period of the
plan. The estimated revenue by existing revenue source (local, State, and Federal and
private) available for transportation projects shall be determined and any shortfalls
identified. Proposed new revenues and/or revenue sources to cover shortfalls shall be
identified, including strategies for ensuring their availability for proposed investments.
Existing and proposed revenue shall cover all forecasted capital, operating, and
maintenance costs. All cost and revenue projections shall be based on the data
reflecting the existing situation and historical trends."
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
9 -1 June 12, 2000
This chapter includes financial analysis for the Texas Department of Transportation, the
Texas Turnpike Authority, and the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Additional
information is needed for cities and county capital project funding and for transportation
system maintenance by all agencies.
Current Planning Considerations of CAMPO Member Jurisdictions
A review of CAMPO area jurisdictions with transportation responsibilities reveals a lack of
consistency in the development and utilization of long term revenue forecasting for both
capital projects and maintenance. While all agencies and jurisdictions have some form of
needs assessment, it is generally not directly tied to a dedicated revenue source. The
exception is Capital Metro, which has a dedicated sales tax base and has prepared a 25-
year revenue forecast.
Other agencies and jurisdictions which have prepared a needs assessment do not have the
same planning horizon. While TxDOT may forecast its needs for 10 years, the City of Austin
looks at a 6 -year planning horizon for their Capital Improvements Program. Because of the
lack of a dedicated revenue source or even a guaranteed annual budget allocation, all of the
agencies and jurisdictions are unable to develop and sustain long -term capital and
maintenance programs. In cities and counties major funding for transportation is provided
by irregular bond elections, with widely varying amounts. Significant new county and city
bond elections are being scheduled or have been proposed.
Major financial planning issues facing many of the implementing agencies in the Austin
metropolitan area include:
No major dedicated transportation funding source.
• Dependence on traditional funding sources (e.g., ad valorem taxes) for maintenance
programs.
Competing interest for limited local dollars (e.g., crime versus roads).
Inability to accurately project revenues and budget allocations for capital and
maintenance programs.
An underuse of alternative transportation funding mechanisms to supplement and
leverage TxDOT funds.
• Inability to "catch up" on backlog of maintenance needs, further exacerbating the long-
term maintenance and viability of the roadway system.
Competing interest and demand by Texas cities for limited state (TxDOT) dollars delays
and defers high priority state highway projects.
The success of implementation of the CAMPO long range plan is dependent upon the
development of a comprehensive financing program for major multi - jurisdictional projects,
identifying costs by agency or jurisdiction, the time frames in which funds are required, and
identified sources of revenue to fund those requirements. The CAMPO long range plan
requires the implementation of a series of traditional and non - traditional funding sources in
order to provide a dedicated and consistent revenue stream over the next 25 years. The
region's transportation needs can not be met if only traditional funding sources are available.
No one can argue with the condition of the region's streets and the needs to improve
Austin's transportation system. The shortfall will only continue to increase as the
transportation system competes with other needed state and local services. The financial
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 9 -2 June 12, 2000
plan must identify a package of funding sources that, if implemented over a period of time,
would close the transportation funding gap.
Successful implementation of the CAMPO long range plan must also take into account other
issues, some of which may be specific to the CAMPO area and others which may result
from statewide, national and international issues. Some of these issues which should be
integrated into the financial planning process include:
• Impacts of local, state and federal environmental policies and ordinances.
• Technology that could promote more efficient utilization of maintenance funds.
• Impacts of potential future clean air non - attainment status.
• Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
• Impacts of federal "information highway" with relation to access to rights -of -way,
requirements for hard -wire and fiber optic systems, etc.
• Impacts of statutory recycling of construction materials.
• Alternative fuels policies and regulations.
• Existing private toll road corporations that have statutory power to develop toll roads.
• TxDOT maintenance agreement renewals with municipal and county entities.
• Use of operational characteristics in prioritizing roadway system maintenance.
• Inconsistency of ROW dedication requirements between local municipal and county
entities.
• Urban and suburban funding resources versus urban and suburban travel demand, in
the CAMPO area.
These and other issues will cause the financial plan to be a dynamic rather than static
document requiring periodic review and updates and statutory program changes or local
initiatives to be enacted.
Policy Initiatives and Strategy
General
Over the next 25 years, the population of the three counties that encompass CAMPO is
expected to reach almost 2.3 million, increasing dramatically the traffic volume and demand
for transportation facilities throughout the region. Public monies are limited for the
improvements that will be needed and under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, CAMPO
and TxDOT will be limited in the types of new highway capacity that can be built to handle
increased traffic.
Broad public resistance to general tax increases and increasing demands on limited federal
and state budgets have left local governments with little choice but to find alternate sources
of revenue to pay for capital and maintenance improvements. A regional and statewide
effort will be required to meet this funding challenge, not only in terms of integrated
transportation modal planning, but also in project identification and implementation and
perhaps most importantly, the allocation of funds.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 9-3 June 12, 2000
A new framework may be necessary which depends on an unprecedented level of
cooperation among state and local units of government, and partnerships with the private
sector to take advantage of capital availability and operating efficiencies. The philosophy
which underpins the regional framework is composed of the following five elements:
• A regional financial plan which addresses identified project funding gaps at five -year
intervals from 2000 through 2025, with revenue initiatives and expenditure reductions
that over time may become progressively severe.
• Institutional actions which will expand the region's ability to finance transportation
projects with public and private capital, contributing to the availability of resources and
financial self sufficiency.
• Utilization of joint private sector / public agency organizations in highway and transit
infrastructure development in order to leverage private capital with scarce public funds
for new projects.
• Highway development that is essentially funded by user fees (tolls). New construction
will be HOV oriented to help achieve the region's air quality goals and congestion priced
to discourage single occupant vehicles.
• Participation in statewide efforts to increase federal and state transportation funding.
Toll Roads
In 1997 the Texas Legislature and Governor created the Texas Turnpike Authority, a
division within TxDOT. Since then the proposed SH 45(N), SH 130, US 183A and Loop
1(N) extension have advanced through project development as candidate toll roads. To
extend available funds as far as possible, leveraging opportunities through the Texas
Transportation Commission should be pursued. The use of toll roads provides a significant
leveraging opportunity. Innovative and new funding sources such as the Transportation
Innovative Financing Infrastructure Act (TIFIA) funds should also be evaluated and applied
where appropriate.
Structure of the Financial Plan
CAMPO's Tong -term financial plan should emphasize a careful assessment of transportation
needs and available funding resources over the period 2000 -2025. The following principles
and assumptions apply to these analyses:
Capital, operating and maintenance requirements are to be projected on a cash flow
basis based on current year dollars.
Specific revenues from traditional federal, state and local sources should be matched to
long -term project funding needs.
The gap in available revenues to meet these needs should be identified at five -year
increments by project category (Le., street rehabilitation and repair, highway
construction, bus capital, etc.).
Availability of non - traditional funding sources (user fees, private sector financing) should
be projected and matched to project requirements over the life of the plan.
One of the basic purposes of the long -range plan is to expand the region's ability to leverage
public funds with private capital, utilizing innovative methods of revenue -based debt
financing without pledging the credit of the public sector.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 9 - 4 June 12, 2000
The identified funding gap should also be matched with potential solutions to address the
shortfall. For example, in the near -term it may be necessary for Austin, Round Rock, Cedar
Park or Leander to impose special assessment districts to fund street, arterial and collector
infrastructure in new neighborhoods. As the gap widens in future years, capital program
cutbacks, deferrals and stern revenue measures may be necessary, even to the point that
mechanisms such as a head tax and sales tax surcharge would be needed to fund the
budget deficit.
The strategy for financial planning contains near -term measures to help prevent a long -term
funding crisis. For example, benefit assessment districts, if properly timed, could set the
stage for other programs such as a dedicated local sales tax or motor fuels tax in the future
or a city /county supported road concessions program in the future.
Use of Public /Private Partnerships
Private capital, when raised through user fees and other non - traditional sources, and
combined with public monies, will expand the region's capacity to fund and complete
highway and transit projects. Public/private partnerships can take several forms, as follows:
• Provision of right -of -way and engineering design and other project services in exchange
for development rights near a major highway project, for example.
• Development of concession roads and bridges, with debt/equity financing, construction
and operation of the facility by a private entity.
• Payment of impact fees through a Benefit Assessment or Special Districts to finance -
special purpose infrastructure connected to residential or commercial developments.
Public/private partnerships can be complex business arrangements in which the mixed use
of public and private funds; allocation of risk and return on equity capital are not well
understood by the public. Among government agencies, the use of federal and state grants,
general obligation boncf authority and direct government revenues is typically not
controversial. However, when this base is expanded to include private capital supported by
tolls, tariffs, and assessments affecting specific users or groups, the politics become more
difficult.
Project Financing and Implementation
The level of regional interagency cooperation needed to effectively implement the long -
range plan could be strengthened by establishment of a Special Infrastructure Development
Unit. The unit would consist of a cadre of planning, engineering and financial specialists
whose mission would be to identify and manage to implementation a limited number of
major transportation projects with public and private sector funding.
The Infrastructure Development Unit could be implemented through a Joint Powers
Resolution among local agencies, such as the TxDOT Austin District and a city and/or
county transportation department. The Unit would be governed by these agencies and on
their behalf would manage a single public/private sector projects pipeline for the region.
Project implementation, however, would remain with the relevant state and local agencies.
The Unit would finance its operations through fees payable at a financial closing, with the
following responsibilities:
• Identification of revenue - producing infrastructure project opportunities for joint funding by
public and private sectors. Highway and transit facilities would be a priority for the Unit.
• Coordination and prioritization of public/private projects among state and local agencies
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
9-5 June 12, 2000
in the region, including allocation of funds.
• Information clearinghouse and point of contact for private firms with an investment
interest in the region's infrastructure. -
Assistance to line agencies in developing a solicitation and bid evaluation process for
public/private projects.
Internal role for local agencies in helping them structure and execute financing for
infrastructure projects.
The Infrastructure Development Unit would be augmented by a Private Sector Infrastructure
Development Fund (PSIDF), funded by local governments as a revolving subordinated debt
facility for privately- funded projects. The fund would be capitalized by local governments
with federal grants or tax exempt bond proceeds. Borrowers with revenue - producing
projects would be eligible for the subordinated debt fund at taxable rates in order to attract
commitments for senior debt from commercial lenders or the capital markets. Timely debt
service payments would replenish the PSIDF for other borrowers.
The Unit could also coordinate the establishment and utilization of an Infrastructure
Development Trust Fund to leverage the off - balance sheet financing potential of public and
non - public revenue sources. The fund would issue revenue and project finance bonds to
support public/private transportation projects in Austin and could be supported by taxes and
grants on the public side and fees and assessments from private sources. It would be under
the management of a public agency issuer, but without the credit of state or local
governments.
Financial Strategy
The Financial Plan includes an estimate of future revenue and capital costs for TxDOT, the
TTA, Capital Metro (light rail transit), and local roadways. It also shows the capital cost of
the proposed Georgetown -San Antonio commuter rail system. Please see Figures 9.1 - 9.5.
Figure 9.6 provides a summary of the 2025 Transportation Plan total cost. For more
detailed information, refer to the Financial Plan Documentation Report.
TxDOT revenues between 2000 and 2025 total $2.408 billion. It is assumed that bicycle
and pedestrian projects would receive $46.8 million over the 26 -year period of the 2025 Plan
based on a 15% annual allocation from STP 4(C) funds. It is also assumed that Congestion
Reduction Projects would receive $500,000 a year ($13 million) for 26 years. This leaves
$2.348 billion available for construction of TxDOT projects over the 26 years of the 2025
Plan. The preliminary estimated cost for all TxDOT projects planned through the year 2025
and fiscally constrained totals $2.024 billion including $244.5 million for right -of -way.
New revenue sources have been recommended for agencies to pursue in order to eliminate
any shortfalls. These new revenue sources are described in Chapter 10H of the CAMPO
2025 Transportation Plan. The following is the strategy for new revenue sources as part of
the CAMPO 2025 Financial Plan to ensure that the shortfalls are eliminated:
1. CAMPO will transmit the adopted CAMPO 2025 with the financial analysis and
recommended new revenue sources to each of the CAMPO member jurisdictions with a
request that they each agree to investigate and pursue the implementation of the new
revenue sources, or else suggest deleting transportation projects from the CAMPO
2025. -
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 9-6 • June 12, 2000
2. CAMPO staff will review the progress of new revenue source implementation by each
jurisdiction and report to the Committee, as appropriate.
Figure 9.1
Federal /State TxDOT Revenue History and Forecast
For Construction Funds
In the CAMPO Metropolitan Area
(million $ /year)
Category Historic Construction Funds Forecasted
j FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 - 2025
National $50.4 $48.0 $13.0 $43.3 $14.9 $5.8 $115.6 $41.2
Highway Syst.
Cat. 12 - TTC $23.7 $26.6 $8.8 $4.1 $0 $0 $27.6 $11.2
Discretionary
STP 4(C) $7.8 $7.8 $7.8 $7.8 $9.7 $9.7 $11.3 $24.0
Other $14.5 $5.2 $9.3 $15.1 $9.6 $5.6 $33.3 $12.0
CMAQ (Starting in 2004, 22 years total) $5.0
TOTAL $96.4 $87.6 $38.9 $70.3 $34.2 $21.1 $187.8 $93.4
Source: Texas Department of Transportation, 2000.
Figure 9.2
Candidate Toll Road Projects Revenues and Costs
Candidate Toll Roads Construction Preliminary Toll Category 18
(Toll Revenue /Category 18 Funds) Cost ROW Est. Revenue (Toll Funds)
SH 130 (60%/40%) $575 $170.0 $345 $230
US 183A (64%/36%) $196 $70.0 $125 $71
Loop 1(N) (FM 734 to SH 45N) (80 %/20 %) $125 $60.0 $100 $25
SH 45(N) (68%/32%) $472 $190.0 $321 $151
SH 45(S) (FM 1626 to US 183(S) (60%/40%) $112 $22.4 $67 $45
TOTAL
$1,480 $512.4 $958 $522
Source: Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Turnpike Authority Division, 2000.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 9 -7 June 12, 2000
Line
Segment
Length
(miles)
Stations
Total
Capital
Cost (1999
$ millions)
Capital
Cost per
Mile (1999
$ millions)
Projected
2007
Weekday
Ridership
Phase 1A
Red/Green
McNeil to CBD
14.6
16
$ 596.5
$ 40.9
32,100
Maintenance Facility
—
—
$ 46.2
—
—
Phase l A Total
14.6
16
$ 642.7
$ 44.0
32,100
Phase 1B
Red/Green
CBD to Ben White
3.4
5
$ 204.1
$ 60.0
8,500
Orange
Seaholm to Pleasant Valley
2.0
5
$ 72.8
$ 36.4
2,600
Phase 1B Total
5.4
10
$ 276.9
$ 51.3
11,100
Funding Category
Sales Taxes
Federal Grants
Passenger Fares
Other Revenue
TOTAL
Figure 9.3
Capital Metro Revenue Forecast
($ Millions)
Source: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, December 1999.
Notes:
(1) Revenue service of the initial phase of the light rail transit system could begin as early as
• 2007 or 2008 depending on available funding.
(2) Assumes that Section 5307 capital grants would be primarily dedicated to the light rail transit
project during the construction period.
(3) Short-term debt can be utilized to meet cash flow needs in the event that annual grant funds
are capped in any given year during construction. Capital Metro may issue short-term debt
(limited to a maturity of five- years) if the voters have previously approved the development of
a light rail transit system.
Figure 9.4
Fixed Guideway System
Preliminary Phasing & Capital Costs: Initial Phase
Source: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Au hority, Nov. 1999
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 9 -
2000 to 2025 Yearly
Total Average
$5,334.3
$959.6
$765.1
$448.9
$205.2
$36.9
$29.4
$17.3
$7,507.9 $288.8
June 12, 2000
Line
Segment
Length
(miles)
Stations
Total
Capital
Cost (1999
$ millions)
Capital
Cost per
Mile (1999
$ millions)
Protected
2007
Weekday
Ridership
Red/Green'
Ben White to Slaughter
4.1
3
$ 172.6
$ 42.1
5,400
Red'
Lamar /Airport to East
Connector
5.9
4
$ 133.5
$ 22.6
6,000
Red'
Leander to McNeil
15.3
2
$ 291.9
$19.1
2,400
Orange'
Pleasant Valley to ABIA
7.0
6
$ 401.5
$ 57.4
3,400
Blue`
Austin -San Antonio
Commuter RaiI
110
12
$ 475.0
$ 4.3
8,000
Figure 9.5
Fixed Guideway System
Preliminary Phasing & Capital Costs: Subsequent Phases
(timing and sequence to be determined)
Sources: ' Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Nov. 1999
2 Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail Study, Final Report, Carter - Burgess, July 1999
Note: Commuter rail capital costs are 1998 dollars; projected ridership is for opening year (2000).
Cost within the CAMPO study area is $171.5 million.
Figure 9.6
Summary of CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan Capital Cost Estimates
(in Millions $)
Transit $2,595
Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail (CAMPO area only) 172
State Roads 2,024
Toll Roads 1,992
Local Roads 1,387
TOTAL $8,170
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
9 -9 June 12, 2000
This page intentionally blank.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 9 -10 June 12, 2000
10 Transportation Plan Policies
A. Plan Integration, Implementation and Intermodalism
Integration and Implementation
Policy A -1: CAMPO will work with member jurisdictions to achieve compatibility of the
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan (CAMPO 2025 Plan) with local plans and
TxDOT's functional classification system. Adoption of CAMPO2025 Plan by
member jurisdictions is a necessary condition to be eligible for CAMPO
approval of federal funds to that jurisdiction.
Policy A -2: CAMPO will prepare and revise population and employment forecasts which
are consistent with member jurisdiction growth policies and a growth
monitoring program.
Policy A-3: CAMPO will coordinate transportation planning activities with land use and
other infrastructure planning activities in cooperation with affected agencies
and jurisdictions.
Policy A-4: CAMPO will monitor changes in the transportation system, transportation
behavior, and land use development in the metropolitan area.
Policy A -5: CAMPO will monitor project implementation schedules and agency
responsibility for major transportation projects.
Intermodalism
Policy A-6: CAMPO will work to build public support for the completion of an integrated
regional fixed guideway /rail system that supports compact mixed -use
communities around transit stations.
Policy A -7: CAMPO encourages member jurisdictions and agencies to create Park/Bike-
and -Ride facilities to provide better access for transit and carpools.
Policy A -8: CAMPO supports the reduction in travel and the high proportion of drive -
alone travel, and an increase in telecommuting and the proportion of transit
ridership, ridesharing, bicycling and walking trips, especially during peak
periods.
B. Environmental and Community Impacts
Air Quality, Water Quality, Noise
Policy B -1: CAMPO is committed to a transportation system that strongly promotes air
and water quality and noise control and meets all federal, state and local
standards.
Policy B-2: CAMPO staff shall perform two evaluations before recommending adoption of
new capacity increasing projects greater than $1 million in the Transportation
Improvement Program. CAMPO staff shall identify any alternative project or
projects which would provide a) the same or approximately the same level of
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 10 June 12, 2000
mobility improvement, while providing a greater emission reduction and b) a
greater improvement in total mobility regardless of emission reduction.
Policy B -3: CAMPO staff shall immediately begin the analysis to determine whether this
Transportation Plan will meet vehicle emissions limits consistent with the
1990 inventory of mobile source emission base -line in a timely manner, so as
to avoid any possible transportation conformity lapse that would prolong or
delay federal highway funding, should EPA designate the region as non -
attainment under the new ozone standard.
Policy B-4: Should our area be classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as
non - attainment for ozone, CAMPO, member jurisdictions and agencies shall
follow the appropriate laws, rules and regulations of the Clean Air Act
Amendments and TEA 21 regarding air quality compliance.
Environmental Justice, Equity Distribution, Access to Jobs
Policy B -5: CAMPO encourages minority and low- income populations to participate in
transportation planning and project development to assure that any project
planned in their neighborhoods will not be detrimental to their health or well-
being.
Policy B -6: CAMPO promotes the equitable distribution of transportation improvements
and services throughout the metropolitan area.
Policy B-7: CAMPO promotes transportation planning and funding for Access to Jobs
programs to ensure that the transportation system serves the entire
workforce.
Land Use
Policy B -8: CAMPO will continue to coordinate with member jurisdictions to encourage
development that is pedestrian and transit friendly and to lessen the
dependence of the automobile.
Policy B -9: CAMPO encourages the adoption of land development guidelines by member
jurisdictions that focus growth within the corporate limits of CAMPO member
cities.
C. Public Transportation System
Integrated Transit System
Policy C -1: CAMPO supports the development of an integrated, seamless transit system
through establishment of a transit federation that enhances regional mobility.
• Work with local jurisdictions and transportation agencies to develop a
regional transit network that includes a combination of travel modes such
as buses, light rail, regional rail, bus rapid transit, and high - occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes.
• Support the creation of intermodal transfer centers that provide efficient,
convenient and easy transfer from one mode to another and facilitate the
development of a seamless transportation network.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 10-2 June 12, 2000
Policy C-6:
• Designate 3rd Street -4th Street right -of -way in downtown Austin as an
east -west passenger rail corridor that would accommodate a variety of
rail vehicles.
Translt- Oriented Development
Policy C -2: CAMPO supports the designation of transit -based land use corridors that
support higher levels of land use and should become primary corridors for
residential and employment growth.
Policy C-3: CAMPO encourages the adoption of land development regulations that allow
compact and mixed -use development in transit corridors.
• Mixed -use development invites a higher proportion of walking, bicycling,
. and transit trips and diminishes the need for single - occupant vehicle
- trips.
Policy C-4: CAMPO encourages collaboration between Capital Metro and other public
agencies in the land use planning and development review process to
enhance the connection between transit and land use.
• Site design criteria should include easy pedestrian and bicycle access to
transit routes and stations, building orientation that invites pedestrian
activity, and parking priority for vanpools /carpools and corresponding
reductions in off-road parking requirements.
• Roadway design criteria should include bus turnouts on major arterials
and shopping facilities; bus stop pads; street geometrics for buses,
especially at intersections; and a comprehensive integration of bicycle
routes into the roadway system.
Accessible Public Transportation
Policy C-5: CAMPO supports public transportation systems that serve all segments of the
region.
• Support the continuation of special transit services for persons with
disabilities who are not able to use mainline transit services.
• Support the continuation of public transportation services for rural
citizens.
• Encourage all jurisdictions in the CAMPO area to provide public transit
' services.
Regional Passenger Rail
CAMPO supports the creation of a commuter rail district to develop, manage,
and operate a regional passenger rail system in the Austin -San Antonio
corridor.
• Promote shared station facilities that make it easy and convenient to
• transfer from one mode to another.
• Support the development of a regional transit federation that would
- coordinate scheduling, advertising, marketing, and seamless fare and
transfer operations. Membership in the transit federation would include
the commuter rail district, Capital Metro, San Antonio's VIA Transit, local
and rural transportation providers in the Austin -San Antonio corridor,
local governments, and major colleges and universities.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 10-3 June 12, 2000
D. Congestion Management System
CAMPO, TxDOT, Capital Metro, the City of Austin, and other member
Jurisdictions will use the CAMPO Congestion Management System as a guide
to develop and implement congestion management projects for the CAMPO
area.
Policy D -1: CAMPO encourages its member jurisdictions to adhere to the "CAMPO
Congestion Management System (CMS) Process Guidelines" to monitor and
evaluate the performance of the multimodal transportation system, identify
the causes of congestion, identify and evaluate alternative actions, provide
information supporting the implementation of actions, and evaluate the
efficiency and effectiveness of implemented actions.
Policy D -2: CAMPO supports the use of the CMS as a guide to develop and implement
Travel Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System
Management (TSM) projects to relieve traffic congestion in the Capital
metropolitan area.
Policy D -3: CAMPO will coordinate the CMS process and make federal funds available to
transportation providers to help them develop and implement congestion
management projects.
CAMPO supports the implementation of Travel Demand Management (TDM)
strategies.
Policy D-4:
CAMPO supports the Commute Solutions / Ozone Action Day Program to
help member jurisdictions, public agencies, and major private sector
employers establish voluntary trip reduction programs for their employees,
and to discourage single- occupant- vehicle travel and other ozone producing
activities during "Ozone Action" days.
Policy D -5: CAMPO supports the development and implementation of a regional public
education program to encourage motorists to use alternative modes of
transportation other than the single occupant vehicle, and to promote the
Ozone Action Day Program.
Policy D -6: CAMPO encourages all member jurisdictions to adopt trip reduction
measures requiring proposed subdivisions and office buildings to implement
congestion management techniques. CAMPO also encourages multi -use
activity centers, parking management, and access management to minimize
traffic volumes to and from a site.
Policy D -7: CAMPO encourages the City of Austin and other member jurisdictions to
adopt parking management policies with financial incentives that encourage
the use of public transportation, carpooling, bicycling and walking; and with
financial disincentives to discourage free parking for single occupant vehicles.
CAMPO supports incident Management and Transportation System
Management (TSM)
Policy D -8: CAMPO supports the establishment of an effective integrated metropolitan
incident management program that provides unified guidance to police, fire,
rescue, and transportation officials and personnel for effectively assisting
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 10 June 12, 2000
motorists in disabled vehicles, cleaning up spills and debris, rescuing
accident victims, and removing wreckage quickly.
Policy D - 9: CAMPO encourages TxDOT, the Capital Metro, the City of Austin, and other
member jurisdictions to provide a safe and efficiently managed and operated
transportation network by improving incident management activities, installing
intelligent transportation systems (ITS), synchronizing traffic signals,
effectively using changeable lane assignment signs, improving exit and
entrance ramp operations, installing reversible travel lanes where
appropriate, removing roadway bottlenecks, improving transit operations, and
making effective use of other (TSM) techniques.
Policy 13-10: CAMPO supports High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) /High Occupancy Toll
(HOT) lanes to increase the person - carrying capacity of major arterials and
freeways.
• CAMPO encourages public and private transportation agencies to plan
and provide Park - and -Ride facilities along HOV corridors to ensure that
such facilities are accessible and useable by pedestrians, bicyclists and
persons with disabilities.
• CAMPO encourages and will consider jointly funding Park - and -Ride,
Kiss - and -Ride and other related facilities to reduce SOV travel throughout
the region.
Policy D - 11: Where feasible, CAMPO encourages all member jurisdictions to: 1) locate
utilities such as water, wastewater, and telephone lines outside the pavement
area of major and minor arterial roadways to minimize the impact of future
utility work on traffic flow, and 2) locate utility lines to minimize the need to
relocate or reinstall sidewalks, signs, and traffic signal poles/equipment as a
result of future utility work.
Policy D -12: CAMPO will work with local jurisdictions to develop a coordinated,
comprehensive and multi -modal phasing program for transportation
construction projects in priority order based on need and greatest benefit and
to minimize overall congestion.
E. Bicycle & Pedestrian System
CAMPO supports a balanced, continuous and interconnected system of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Policy E -1: Provide a coordinated and contiguous system of regional bicycle and
pedestrian facilities that offer a viable alternative to automobile travel.
Policy E -2: Provide bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, where appropriate, in
conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation
facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use is not permitted.
Policy E -3: Remove barriers to continuous bicycle and pedestrian travel to encourage
bicycling and walking as modes of transportation.
CAMPO encourages a comprehensive approach to planning bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 10 -5 June 12, 2000
Policy E-4 Create an interconnected, two-level bikeway system to accommodate all
bicyclists in the CAMPO planning area, one level for Group A and a second
level for Group B/C cyclists.
Policy E -5: Integrate bicycling, walking and public transit to increase the efficiency of the
transportation system.
• Provide sidewalk connections to all transit stops, park- and -ride lots, and
other transportation facilities to support transit/walking trips.
Provide bike racks on all buses, rail cars and routes to the extent
possible, and provide bikeways to transit stops and park- and -ride lots.
Policy E-6 Support continued development of a pedestrian - friendly transportation
network.
Create a network of sidewalks that allow pedestrians to reach important
destinations easily.
Encourage compact and mixed land uses that create a pedestrian -
friendly environment and facilitate walking.
Policy E -7: Support continued development of a regional off -road trails system that
connects trails to activity centers such as schools, workplaces, shopping
centers and parks. Integrate the network of off -road facilities with the on-
street system.
CAMPO supports the creation and preservation of a safe, convenient and
attractive bicycling and walking environment.
Policy E-8: Encourage member jurisdictions to adopt AASHTO design standards to
create safe and convenient facilities that encourage bicycling and walking.
Policy E - 9: Encourage member jurisdictions to use uniform signing and marking of
bikeways and walkways.
Policy E -10: Encourage member jurisdictions to adopt maintenance practices to preserve
bikeways and walkways in a smooth, clean and safe condition.
F. Roadway System
Regionally Significant Roadways
Policy F -1: Establish a system of regionally significant arterials and freeways for the
CAMPO study area.
Policy F -2: Give priority to roadway improvements which will increase a roadway's
person - carrying capacity, such as transit lanes and HOV lanes, as opposed
to the vehicle - carrying capacity. CAMPO supports preferential roadway
treatment for transit and other high occupancy vehicles (HOV) such as
vanpools and carpools.
Policy F -3: CAMPO supports building SH 45(N), SH 130, Loop 1 (N) and US 183A and
the newly recommended portion of SH 45(S) as new toll roads, as well as
other appropriate roads to be identified.
Policy F-4: Where appropriate, establish access management strategies for major
regional arterials and thoroughfares to improve safety and facilitate traffic
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 10-6 June 12, 2000
flow. Such management should include limiting the number of curb cuts,
installing raised medians where appropriate, ramp metering and many other
accepted transportation engineering practices.
Policy F -5: Balancing the need for roadway maintenance with the need for new roads
shall be carefully considered when allocating funds.
Policy F - 6: The design and construction of new regional transportation facilities shall
minimize disruption and negative impacts to neighborhoods.
Policy F -7: The existing and future regionally significant arterials shall provide a sufficient
level of mobility in order to minimize neighborhood infiltration (cut through
traffic).
Policy F - 8: Implement the entire arterial network by CAMPO and member agencies so
that the region's motorists have alternate routes to travel in order to avoid
congestion incidents.
Policy F -9: Establish a system for capital projects that coordinates advance planning
processes and right -of -way acquisition to more efficiently manage the
implementation of the projects.
Overall Roadway Network
Policy F -10: Establish a classification of collector streets and larger according to the
character of the service they provide to through traffic and local access based
upon the federal Functional Street Classification System.
Policy F -11: Development of the roadway system should be compatible with the needs of
other modes such as pedestrian, transit and bicycle transport.
Policy F -12: Work with member jurisdictions to ensure that new roadways in undeveloped
areas are funded by and constructed by private developers.
Policy F -13: Preserve future major street alignments by preventing development within
corridors designated as right -of -way for future roads. There should be
coordination between government entities and land developers in order to
preserve this right -of -way.
Policy F - 14: When allowing new land development, local governments should ensure that
the connecting and adjacent street system is able to handle the type, intensity
and traffic generation characteristics of the new development.
Policy F -15: Safety issues shall be considered a high priority when comparing alternative
projects for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program.
Policy F - 16: It is the vision of the CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) that SH 130
be a true intermodal facility, with a freight and passenger rail element. To
protect the concerned neighborhoods of East Austin, the portion of SH 130
which stretches from US 290 to SH 71 is adopted as a parkway and must
have limited access points.
Policy F -17: The CAMPO PAC approves both alternative alignments of SH 130 in the
2025 Plan with the following planning parameters for the project:
• The project's main purpose is to serve as a bypass for through traffic
around urban areas in Central Texas.
• The project must avoid environmental justice issues in East Austin as
required by FHWA Order 6640.23.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
10 -7 June 12, 2000
• The project must not have unacceptable noise impacts on
neighborhoods.
• The project must not have unacceptable impacts on parks and park
acquisition plans.
• The project must not have unacceptable impacts on watersheds with a
high resource value.
G. Freight System
Roadway and Rail Expansion Policies
Policy G -1: Support the development of SH -130 as an express freight route.
Policy G -2: Support the relocation of the UPRR to the east for through -rail freight
movement in conjunction with the development of SH -130, if feasible.
Policy G -3: Support the development of alternative roadway freight routes in order to
bypass traffic congestion and construction activities on IH -35.
Policy G-4: Support the concept of Special Use Lanes for commercial vehicles.
Policy G -5: Improve roadways in high freight - volume activity areas by smoothing
horizontal curves, relocating telephone poles, strengthening pavement for
supporting heavy trucks, modifying medians, and improving intersections to
enable easier truck movements.
Operational Regulations Policies
Policy G-6: Support state laws and local ordinances to restrict large commercial trucks to
the right two lanes of controlled- access facilities having three or more main
lanes in each direction to facilitate more efficient traffic flow.
Policy G -7: Support the establishment of an adequate supply of designated delivery
parking spaces for commercial vehicles, especially in central business
districts.
Policy G -8: Support the development and designation of hazardous materials routes for
trucks.
Policy G -9: Support the use of discount rates and commercial credit accounts as an
incentive for trucks to use tollroad facilities with electronic tolling systems
during non peak -hour periods.
Land Use
Policy G -10: Provide incentives to freight transportation companies to: 1) locate near the
Austin Bergstrom International Airport and future intermodal freight
operations facilities, and 2) relocate their existing facilities away from
residential and high- traffic volume areas.
Regional Freight Study
Policy G -11: CAMPO supports funding for a comprehensive Regional Intermodal Freight
Movement Study to identify the economic impact of congestion and to
evaluate methods to enhance freight movement including consideration of a
train/truck intermodal facility.
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 10-8 June 12, 2000
H. Financial Plan
Member Agency and Jurisdiction Financial Planning Policies
Policy H -1: CAMPO supports the use of Capital Metro funds for a portion of the planning,
development, and operation of HOV lanes.
Policy H -2: CAMPO, TxDOT, and other member jurisdictions will cooperatively prioritize
National Highway system projects to maximize eligibility for federal
transportation funding.
Policy H -3: CAMPO, TxDOT, and other member jurisdictions will coordinate and
cooperate in the passage of local Capital Improvement Program bond issues
to fund local segments of the CAMPO 2025 Plan.
Policy H-4: The CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee strongly supports the Transportation
Enhancement Program and will approve federal funds in the Transportation
Improvement Program to implement selected enhancement projects.
Policy H -5: CAMPO encourages all member jurisdictions to proactively support and
cooperate with TxDOT Austin District in the implementation of regional
Interstate, National Highway System, U.S. Highway, State Highway, and
Farm - to-Market projects as identified in the CAMPO 2025 Plan and the
Transportation Improvement Program.
Policy H-6: CAMPO recommends the establishment of a Special Infrastructure
Development Unit to coordinate the activities of member agencies and
jurisdictions and the private sector in the programming, financing and
construction of regional transportation projects, augmented by a Private
Sector Infrastructure Development Fund and Infrastructure Development
Trust Fund.
Policy H -7: CAMPO encourages all member jurisdictions to create and fund dedicated
revenue accounts using traditional and non - traditional sources for necessary
roadway pavement reconstruction and rehabilitation work, and adequate
transportation system maintenance.
Non - Traditional Sources of Revenue Policies
Policy H -8: CAMPO encourages and supports the evaluation and application, where
appropriate and viable, of user -fee mechanisms such as tolls, congestion
pricing, and tax exempt revenue bonds to finance transportation system
improvements.
Policy H -9: CAMPO encourages and supports the evaluation and application, where
appropriate and viable, of value capture techniques such as Special Districts,
Tax Increment Financing, Developer Impact Fees, and Sale of Development
Rights to finance transportation system improvements.
Policy H -10: CAMPO encourages and supports the evaluation and application, where
appropriate and viable, of dedicated revenue source funds such as a
Dedicated Sales Tax, Local Option Gas Tax, and Auto/Bicycle Licensing
Fees for transportation system improvements.
Policy H -11: CAMPO encourages and supports the evaluation and application, where
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 10-9 June 12, 2000
appropriate and viable, of additional governmental or institutional
mechanisms such as Revolving Loan Funds, Subordinated Debt Financing,
and Sale /Leaseback Agreements to provide capital for transportation system
improvements:
Policy 1-1-12: CAMPO strongly encourages and supports the evaluation and development,
where appropriate and financially feasible, of private sector funding sources
such as Taxable Bonds, Public/Private Partnerships, and Concessions
Agreements.
Policy H -13: CAMPO supports the establishment of a new funding source for the
implementation of the proposed Georgetown to San Antonio commuter rail
system.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
10 -10 June 12, 2000
11 Transportation Glossary & Acronym List
Access management: A process that provides or manages access for roadway users
entering or exiting adjacent developed land without significantly impacting safety conditions,
traffic capacity, and vehicle speeds for other roadway users. Access management
strategies, including design and control of driveways, curb cuts, turn lanes, parking lot
circulation, public street connections, and intersections, are most often applied to highways
or major urban and suburban arterial streets. -
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO): A non - profit,
non - partisan association that represents the member highway and transportation
departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and whose primary
goal is to foster the development, operation and maintenance of an integrated national
transportation system.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Federal law which requires that public facilities and
transportation services accommodate the disabled.
Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (2020 Plan): The CAMPO 2020 Long -Range
Transportation Plan, adopted in 1994, that identifies existing and future transportation
deficiencies and needs, as well as network improvements needed to meet mobility
requirements over at least a twenty -year time period.
Austin Metropolitan Trails & Greenways (AMATG): A coalition of public, private and non-
profit organizations, local advocacy groups, neighborhood associations and individuals
working on developing a comprehensive system of greenways and trails in the greater
Austin area.
Bike Lane: A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, signing and
pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles.
Bike Path: A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicle traffic by an open space
or barrier within the highway right -of -way or within an independent right -of -way.
Bike Route: A segment of a system of bikeways designated by the jurisdiction having
authority with appropriate directional and informational markers, with or without specific
bicycle route number.
Bikeway: Any road, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated as being
open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive
use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes.
Bus -Only Lane: A traffic lane on a street that is reserved for transit vehicles and designated
by special signage and striping.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) (formerly ATS): The official
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Austin metropolitan area whose purpose
is to coordinate regional transportation planning with the State of Texas, three counties,
nineteen cities, and the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and other
transportation providers and to approve the use of federal transportation funds within the
Austin metropolitan area. -
Capital Area Planning Council ( CAPCO): An association of cities, counties and special
districts consisting of the 10 county area (Bastrop, Blanco, Bumet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays,
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 11 -1 June 12, 2000
Lee, Llano, Travis and Williamson) surrounding Austin whose primary purpose is to plan for
the development of the area.
Capital Area Rural Transport System (CARTS): A bus company that provides transit
services for residents of Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, and Lee Counties
and those portions of Travis and Williamson Counties not in the City of Austin's bounds.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP): A local government program that has the objective of
completing numerous public infrastructure and facility projects within a specified time frame.
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA): An agency established to operate
transportation programs for the Austin metropolitan service area's residents, including public
transit systems, special transportation for the disabled and information dissemination on
alternative transportation modes.
Central Business District (CBD): The downtown retail trade and commercial area of a city or
an area having high land values, traffic flow and concentration of retail business offices,
entertainment, lodging and services.
Center for Transportation Research (CTR): A nationally recognized research center at the
University of Texas which undertakes relevant transportation research, provides significant
educational opportunities for University of Texas students, and provides a public service by
conducting research that responds to the transportation needs of Texas and other U.S.
travelers. In partnership with the Texas Department of Transportation and other sponsors,
CTR undertakes investigations that seek practical solutions to various state mobility
problems.
Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP): Travel related data collected during the
1990 Census.
Changeable lane assignment signs: Signs that automatically adjust for time -of day
variations in turning movement volumes (e.g., change from "straight only" to "straight and
left- turn ").
Circulator Service: Local -stop, high- frequency transit service for high - density, pedestrian -
oriented districts. The service may include a shuttle or park- and -ride function from some
periphery parking area to the high - density activity area.
Clean Air Act (CAA): Federal legislation that requires each state with areas that have not
met federal air quality standards to prepare a State Implementation Plan, or SIP.
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA): Amendments made in 1990 to the Clean Air Act which
aim to substantially reduce air pollutants by specified target dates.
CLEAN AIR Force of Central Texas (CAF): An independent, non - profit organization of
government agencies, environmental and business organizations, and interested individuals
in Travis, Williamson, and Hays Counties whose purpose is to create programs consisting of
educational and voluntary actions that can be taken to reduce air pollution. The goal of CAF
is to develop programs that keep the Central Texas region in compliance with the federal
standard for ozone.
Commercial Vehicle Only lanes (CVO): A traffic lane that can be used only by commercial
vehicles such as trucks and vans transporting products, mail, building materials or other
forms of freight for business purposes.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
11 -2 June 12, 2000
Commuter Rail (CR): Railroad local and regional passenger train operations between a
central city, its suburbs and/or another central city. It may be either locomotive- hauled or
self - propelled, and is characterized by multi -trip tickets, specific station - to-station fares,
railroad employment practices and usually only one or two stations in the central business
district. Also known as "suburban rail ".
Concession agreement: By using techniques such as "Build -Own- Transfer" and "Build -Own-
Operate" agreements, governments can partner with the private sector to develop or expand
facilities. Without public liability, the government can award a concession in a particular
corridor for a fixed period of time to private firms, who build or expand the facility using funds
from investors and lenders.
Congestion Management System (CMS): A systematic process that provides information on
transportation system performance and alternative strategies to alleviate congestion and
enhance the mobility of persons and goods. A CMS includes methods to monitor and
evaluate performance; identify alternative action; access and implement cost - effective
action; and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions.
Congestion Management Team (CMT): A team of representatives from public agencies that
plan, develop, implement, monitor, and evaluate projects and programs for managing traffic
congestion. CMTs play an important role in the CAMPO Congestion Management System.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ): A funding program
that helps implement projects designed to reduce emissions in non - attainment areas.
Congestion Pricing: Charging fees to users of transportation facilities. Fees can vary
depending on time day to enable increased level of control over traffic volumes.
Congestion Reduction Program (CRP): An important element of the CAMPO Congestion
Management System (CMS). The program provides STP 4C funds for implementing low
cost, near -term congestion reduction projects and initiatives such as the CAMPO Commute
Solutions /Ozone Action Day Program, traffic signal synchronization projects, freeway
operations studies, and traffic count stations.
Corridor Mobility Plan: CAMPO Congestion Management System document showing
proposed projects and programs specifically aimed at reducing "traffic congestion.
Council of Governments (COG): Voluntary associations of local governments formed under
Texas law that deal with problems and planning needs that cross the boundaries of
individual local governments or that require regional attention.
Dedicated sales tax: An increasingly popular financing method that allows local
governments to use tax revenue income to match or leverage federal transportation funds
for implementing transportation improvements. In high - growth areas, earmarked sales taxes
can produce a secure revenue stream with which to support bond financing for certain kinds
of projects, for example, highway and transit infrastructure projects that may not generate
sufficient operating income to cover construction costs. Dedication of sales tax for
transportation purposes requires voter approval.
Department of Transportation (USDOT): Federal cabinet -level agency headed by the
Secretary of Transportation with responsibility for highways, mass transit, aviation and ports.
The DOT includes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA).
Developer impact fees: Occurs after a highway has been built and is applied to the value
(income potential) of adjacent land that becomes developable as a result of the
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 11 -3 June 12, 2000
improvements. These fees can be fixed on the value of the land or the completed
development. Useful for development of transit centers near planned office buildings or
highway interchanges constructed in the vicinity of land which is zoned for malls or shopping
centers.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE): A business with gross receipts of less than
$15,370,000 over the previous three years and is at least 51% owned by one or more
persons who are minorities or women.
Electronic tolling system: Allows vehicle operators to pay a toll without bringing the vehicle
to a complete stop. This requires attaching a special device to the vehicle that can be
scanned by an electronic reader at the toll collection facility. Vehicle operators are billed
later via the postal system.
Environmental Assessment (EA): A document that assesses an action that is not a
categorical exclusion and does not clearly require the preparation of an environmental
impact statement.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document required by the National Environment
Policy Act that addresses any adverse economic, social and/or environmental effects of a
proposed transportation project for which federal funding is being sought.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): A federal agency charged with protecting the
natural resources of the nation.
Express Service: Non -stop service between two distant points, usually from a suburb or
fringe area, coupled with park- and -ride lots, to the central core. Express service may also
operate between suburban activity centers. Operating speeds should be, at a minimum, 2
to 3 times that of local service.
Expressway (EXPY): A divided highway usually having two or more traffic lanes in each
direction. Traffic can enter or exit an expressway only at ramped interchanges or at
signalized intersections with major streets. Few private access points are allowed.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ): The area in which a city enforces its subdivision and water
quality ordinances, but not its planning, zoning, and health/safety ordinances. The ETJ
extends from the city limits to a certain distance (for larger cities, 5 miles) and its residents
do not pay city taxes and may vote only in certain city elections dealing with issues that
affect them.
Farm to Market (FM): An identifier for a roadway designated by the Texas Transportation
Commission to be part of the statewide highway system. Normally associated as a 2 - lane
roadway in rural areas, but are located in urban areas and can be a 4 or 6 lane divided
roadway. The FM roadway designation is typically given to roads that are located east of IH
35.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): The component of USDOT that administers,
plans, funds and regulates the federal highway system.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA): The component of USDOT that operates under the
authority of the Federal Transit Act and provides financial and technical assistance to local
transit systems.
Fixed Guideway: Busways or Tight rail transit service that can accommodate up to 4,000
passengers/hour in the peak hour direction with 7.5- minute headways along a corridor.
Although local service may exist, the primary function of the corridor is that of line haul. It
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 11-4 June 12, 2000
operates as a limited- express to express type service. Given the nature of continually
evolving guideway technology, the specific type of service is generic to allow flexibility. As a
corridor develops, higher capacity transit service can be gradually introduced.
Freeway (FWY): A divided highway usually having two or more traffic lanes in each
direction. Traffic can enter or exit a freeway only at ramped,interchanges so that "through"
traffic is not interrupted. Freeways often include frontage roads that allow access to and
from the freeway and permit drivers to safely make tums onto cross streets or into
driveways. Frontage roads are usually separated from the freeway's main lanes by wide
medians.
Freight Rail. A railway dedicated to transporting cargo as opposed to passengers.
Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer system for storing, analyzing and
mapping geographic data.
Grade separated intersection: An intersection that is designed to vertically separate two or
more potentially conflicting traffic streams by providing a bridge structure(s) that allows
traffic flowing on different roadways to flow concurrently, and reduces or eliminates the need
for traffic signals. •
Growth management The partial control of land use, transportation, and other public
infrastructure planning decisions by state or local governments in order to restrict or redirect
the growth of population and employment to specific areas or to predetermined levels.
High Occupancy Toll (HOTl: A fee that allows solo drivers to use HOV lanes.
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV): Vehicles having two or more occupants.
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM): A guide to the design and operational analysis of
highway facilities.
Historically Underutilized Business (HUB): A business certified by the General Services
Commission as a sole proprietorship, partnership or joint venture corporation and is at least
51% owned by one or more persons who are minorities or women.
Incident Management: An incident is a non - recurrent event that causes reduction of
roadway capacity or abnormal increase in demand. Incident management involves six
major tasks: detection, verification, response, removaVrestoration of capacity, traffic
management, and information to motorists. An incident such as a serious freeway traffic
accident will generally require a coordinated effort by many different organizations involving
police, fire, emergency, and transportation personnel.
Infrastructure Development Trust Fund: Leverages the off - balance sheet financing
potential of public and non - public revenue sources. The Fund would issue revenue and
project finance bonds to support public/private transportation projects in the Capital area
and could be supported by taxes and grants on the public side and fees and assessments
from private sources. A public agency issuer would manage the Fund, but without the credit
of state or local governments.
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS): A system that enables people and goods to move
more safely and efficiently through a state -of- the -art, intermodal transportation system that
includes information processing, communications, control, and electronics. Automatic
vehicle location systems, advanced signal timing, and other new and emerging advanced
technology can be used with public transportation systems.
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 11 -5 June 12, 2000
Intermodal freight operations facility: A facility where freight is transferred from one mode of
transportation to another, such as from a train to a truck.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA): A bill providing
authorizations for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation for Fiscal Years 1992-
1997. The purpose of the Act is to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System
that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the Nation
to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient
manner. Metropolitan Planning Organizations, in cooperation with the State and key
transportation providers, must develop transportation plans and programs for metropolitan
areas.
Level of Service (LOSI: A description of the quality of service that can be expected by users
of transportation facilities. For highways "A" means traffic is flowing freely and "E" or "F"
means the highway is very congested. Highway LOS can be determined based on "Density"
(average number of passenger cars located in a single lane within a one mile section),
"Speed" (the average attainable speed in miles per hour), or "Maximum Service FIoW'
(average number of passenger cars that pass by every hour in one lane).
Light Rail: An electric railway with a "light volume" of traffic capacity compared to heavy rail.
Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights -of -way, high or low platform loading and multi -
car trains or single cars. Also know as "streetcar", "trolley car" and "tramway".
Local option fuel tax: With State Legislature approval, municipalities can tax fuel purchases
along with the State and Federal governments. Fuel taxes are a natural revenue source for
transportation improvements but they are typically opposed by the trucking industry, the
American Automobile Association, and educators in Texas, whose portion of the state's
gasoline levy could be affected by a reduction in fuel usage.
Local Service: Transit service, usually by bus, that accommodates boardings and alightings
roughly every 300 to 1,000 feet, depending on density levels. The average operating speed
is usually between 10 and 25 miles per hour.
Long - Range Plan (LRP): A plan referring to transportation planning for a time span of more
than twenty years.
Major Arterial Divided (MAD): High volume surface roadways with high priority at
intersections with all lower level facilities. Typically, signalization is provided at significant
crossings.
Maior Arterial Undivided (MAU): Similar to Major Divided Arterial, but with no center
median, normally due to right -of -way limitations.
Maior Investment Study (MIS): A study, required under ISTEA, done on major
transportation improvement projects such as fixed guideway transit projects and controlled
access highways that would involve the use of federal funds. The study includes factors
that would justify a proposed project, such as its cost effectiveness and overall
effectiveness, and evaluates various modes of travel to solve a transportation problem.
Major Transfer Center. A multimodal transportation node that connects two or more transit
routes with pedestrian, bicycle or automobile modes of travel. The transfer distance
between different modes of transport should be no more than 300 feet wherever possible,
with an absolute maximum of 600 feet.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): The organizational entity established by law to
provide a forum for cooperative transportation decision making for the metropolitan area
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 11-6 June 12, 2000
containing a population of 50,000 people or more. Major responsibilities include the
development of transportation plans and programs and authorization of the use of federal
transportation dollars.
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP): Another name for the Long -Range Plan in
metropolitan areas.
Minor Arterial (MNR): A secondary facility to meet local access and circulation
requirements. Low priority is given at significant intersections.
Minority - owned Business Enterprise (MBE): A business whose ownership is comprised of at
least 51% minorities.
Municipal Utility District (MUD): Political entities created by the State of Texas having the
authority to construct and maintain improvements, incur debt and tax the land within its
boundaries to pay operating expenses and repay debts. A board of directors elected by
MUD property owners governs MUDs.
National Highway System (NHS): A system developed by the Department of Transportation
in cooperation with the states, local officials and metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs) that identifies major intermodal highways that connect to major intermodal facilities
(ports, airports, rail transit, etc.) and are important to the Nation's economy, defense and
mobility.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): A pollutant produced during fossil fuel combustion that contributes
to ground -level ozone.
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): An agreement between the United
States, Canada and Mexico which promotes means for improved and increased free trade
between these three countries.
Ozone (0 Ozone is a secondary air pollutant and a photochemical oxidant. The
production of ozone, which occurs when sunlight triggers chemical reactions involving
nitrous oxides (NOx) and atmospheric oxygen, is highly dependent on the ratio of
hydrocarbons to NOx in the atmosphere. Therefore, hydrocarbon emissions caused by the
operation of trucks, automobiles, lawn mowers, and other gasoline powered equipment, can
contribute to the production of ozone. Ozone can travel long distances or can accumulate
over an area for long periods of time depending on wind circulation patterns and topographic
conditions.
Park-and-Ride Lot Any designated parking lot that is serviced with express or limited -
express transit service.
Parking management: Most often implemented by a parking management system which
routes travelers directly to facilities with available parking. Parking management systems
reduce the amount of travel by motorists searching for available parking spaces, make
parking more convenient for the traveler, reduce fuel consumption and emissions, and
reduce the potential for accidents. These systems also improve the marketing and
exposure of parking facilities and the businesses served by them. They can also be
designed to encourage ridesharing and transit use, primarily through pricing incentives.
Parkway (WY): Through travel lanes similar in characteristics to freeways but typically
without parallel frontage roads.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
11 -7 June 12, 2000
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC): The governing body of CAMPO consisting of locally
elected officials and representatives from the Texas Department of Transportation and
Capital Metro.
Private Sector Infrastructure Development Fund: A revolving subordinated debt facility for
privately funded projects. Local governments would capitalize the Fund with federal grants
or tax exempt bond proceeds. Borrowers with revenue - producing projects would be eligible
for the subordinated debt Fund at taxable rates in order to attract commitments for senior
debt from commercial lenders or the capital markets. Timely debt service payments would
replenish the Fund for other borrowers.
Public Involvement Program (PIP): Established guidelines developed to disseminate
information to all metropolitan area citizens, groups, agencies, and transportation providers
to assure their input in the decision making process of transportation programs, projects,
etc. for the Austin metropolitan area.
Railhead: The end of a rail spur where trains are serviced, stored, or loaded and unloaded.
Ranch to Market (RM): Identifier for a roadway designated by the Texas Transportation
Commission to be part of the statewide highway system. Normally associated as a 2 -lane
roadway in rural areas, but are located in urban areas and can be a 4 or 6 lane divided
roadway. The RM roadway designation is typically given to roads that are located west of
IH35.
Reversible travel lane: A traffic lane which is used to carry traffic in one direction during a
specific period of the day, and carries traffic in the opposite direction, or is restricted to
turning movements, during another period of the day. Changeable electronic signs are used
to inform motorists of how the lane can be used.
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG): Unleaded gasoline with a special additive designed to lower
emissions upon combustion by providing more oxygen to the fuel during combustion.
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP): An indicator of the volatility of gasoline and is measured in
pounds per square inch (psi).
Revolving loan fund: Financing tool that recycles funds by providing loans, receiving loan
repayments, and then providing further loans. Austin could capitalize its own revolving fund
with grants or bond proceeds secured by independent revenue sources.
Right of Way (ROW): Public land reserved for locating infrastructure such as a roadway or a
utility line.
Sale/leaseback agreement: Used by public agencies as a cash flow management
technique. Government owned facilities, such as bus maintenance facilities, can be sold to
private investors, who will expand or rehabilitate the facility and then lease it back to the
public agency over a fixed period of time.
Sale of development rights: Used by the public sector to capture the potential value of real
estate at highway interchanges and along arterials, without giving up ownership of the land.
Shared Roadway: A roadway which is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel. This
may be an existing roadway, street with wide curb lanes, or road with paved shoulders.
Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV): Any vehicle that contains just one person, the driver.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 11-8 June 12, 2000
•
Special districts: Special Assessment Districts, Benefit Assessment Districts, and Road
Utility Districts are used to help recover the capital costs of street or roads or to capture part
of the potential value of these improvements for adjoining landowners or commercial
businesses. As public entities, these districts can issue bonds secured only by fee income.
This affects or benefits specific constituents and can be politically sensitive. Revenues
derived from special districts are potentially a good source of funds for maintenance reserve
accounts.
Special Infrastructure Development Unit. A working group of planning, engineering and
financial specialists which oversees a limited number of major transportation projects that
are financed with public and private sector funds. Through a Joint Powers Resolution the
Unit's governance could be shared among local agencies such as the TxDOT Austin District
and a city and/or county transportation department, and the Unit would manage a single
pipeline of public/private sector projects for the region. Project implementation would
remain with the relevant state and local agencies. The Unit would finance its operations
through fees payable at a financial closing.
Special Transit Service (STS): A program operated by Capital Metro to serve citizens with
disabilities by providing them with door -to -door, shared ride, or accessible public
transportation.
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA): A Census Bureau delineation for major
metropolitan areas in the U.S.
State Data Center (SDC): The official repository of census data and demographic data for
the State of Texas.
State Highway (SH): Roads, streets and highways maintained by the State.
State Implementation Plan (SIP): A plan required by the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
which describes how the State of Texas will meet air quality standards.
State Transportation Improvement Program (STiP): A staged, multi -year statewide,
intermodal program of transportation projects which is consistent with the Statewide
Transportation Plan and planning processes and metropolitan plans, TIPs and processes.
Statewide Transportation Plan (STP): The official statewide, intermodal transportation plan
that is developed through the statewide transportation planning process.
Subordinated debt financing: Longer term financing, which is subordinated to the primary
debt in a project, can improve the credit quality of a project and its chances for financial
closure. Subordinated lenders can be investors looking for higher returns, or government
agencies with an interest in a project financed primarily by commercial lenders or the capital
markets. If a Private Sector Infrastructure Development Fund is capitalized with grants, or
from independent revenue sources, a city or a county may be able to participate as an
indirect lender for eligible projects. Authorization may be needed from the State Legislature.
Surface Transportation Program (STP) (part of ISTEA and TEA 21): A federal program
designed to create flexible funding for transit and highway construction.
Surface Transportation Program Category 48 for Transportation Enhancement (STP4B): A
funding category used to address projects that are above and beyond what could normally
be expected in the way of enhancements to the transportation system.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 11 -9 June 12, 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
Surface Transportation Program Category 4C for Metropolitan Mobility /Rehabilitation"
(STP4C): A funding category used to address transportation needs within the metropolitan
area boundaries of MPOs having urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or greater.
Tax exempt revenue bonds: Widely used by state and local governments to finance
revenue producing facilities such as airports, toll roads, sports complexes, hospitals, and
wastewater plants. It is generally secured only by project revenues, without a back -up
pledge, and is regarded as off balance sheet financing for the public agency issuing the
bonds. Under appropriate arrangements, revenue bonds can also be used for street
rehabilitation and maintenance.
Tax increment financing: Utilized where property values and ad valorem assessments may
increase as the result of transportation improvements. The local government agrees to
apply the tax proceeds of any increased assessment to support the financing for a specified
period of time, thereafter claiming the tax revenues for itself. Useful in urban areas for rail
transit development, but limited potential for highways.
Teleride: Demand response service, usually provided with cabs, in an area where density
levels do not warrant fixed route service. The three existing teleride zones are planned to
be replaced with fixed route service during the coming years. New teleride zones may be
established in other sparsely developed areas.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDO72: The State agency responsible for
construction and maintenance of all interstate, U.S, state highways, ranch - to-market (RM)
and farm - to-market (FM) roads within the state.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC): A state agency charged with
protecting water and air resources, including regulation of hazardous material sites.
Texas Transportation Institute (TT/1: A state agency that is a member of the Texas A &M
University system and engages in research pertaining to all forms of transportation,
including all phases of activities concerned with the movement of people, goods, and
services, and identifies and helps to solve major state and national transportation problems.
Toll Road A road in which one must pay a toll or a fee to use.
Traffic Serial Zone (TSZ): The smallest geographically designated area used for analysis of
transportation activity such as data collection and travel movements within, into, and out of
the urban area.
Transit -Oriented Development (TOD): Types of development that enhance or support public
transit use.
Transportation Control Measure (TCM) (for air quality): Any measure designed to reduce
traffic congestion, pollution emissions and other traffic problems.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM): An effort to reduce the number of people
traveling by single- occupant vehicles (SOV) by promoting non -SOV modes of transportation
(e.g., carpools, vanpools, transit). TDM efforts may also discourage the use of SOVs by
imposing tolls or taxes.
Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP): A federal program that provides funds for
non - traditional improvements adjacent to or within the right of way of a transportation facility.
Some examples of improvements are preserving an historic structure, installing bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, landscaping, and incorporating environmental protection systems.
11 -10 June 12, 2000
Transportation Equity Act for the 21' Century (TEA 21): A law authorizing highway, highway
safety, transit and other surface transportation programs for FY1998 — 2003. This new law
combines the continuation and improvement of current ISTEA programs with new initiatives
to meet the challenges of improving safety as traffic continues to increase at record levels,
protecting and enhancing communities and the natural environment and advancing
America's economic growth and competitiveness domestically and internationally through
efficient and flexible transportation.
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): A document prepared by an MPO that
identifies funding for specific transportation projects and studies to be implemented in an
area over a three -year period.
Transportation Management Area (TMA): Term for all urbanized areas with a population of
over 200,000.
Transportation Systems Management (TSM): A program to reduce congestion and improve
traffic flow through traffic signal synchronization, freeway operations improvements (e.g.,
changeable message signs and ramp metering), incident management (clearing accidents
and breakdowns quickly). Other methods can include bus pullouts, intersection
improvements and queue jumper lanes where appropriate.
Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP): An annual work plan prepared by the MPOs
describing transportation planning activities and funding sources that will occur within their
specific jurisdiction.
Unified Transportation Program (UTP): A ten -year planning document that guides and
controls project development for TxDOT in a feasible and economical manner.
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): Toxic residual chemicals from fossil fuel combustion,
solvents, paints, glues and some dry cleaning processes which contribute to ozone
formation.
Woman -owned Business Enterprise (WBE): A business whose ownership is comprised of
at least 51% women.
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 11 -11 June 12, 2000
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
This page intentionally blank
11 -12 June 12, 2000
12 References
Chapter 1 & Background
Austin Transportation Study (ATS) (now the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization — CAMPO). Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. December
1994.
ATS (CAMPO). Public Opinion Survey. Prepared by Opinion Analysts, Inc. April 1994.
ATS (CAMPO). Public Opinion Survey. Prepared by Opinion Analysts, Inc. April 1997.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). Citizens' Transportation Guide
to the Austin Metropolitan Area. 1998.
CAMPO. Public Involvement Program. 1995.
CAMPO. Transportation Improvement Program.
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act. Washington, D.C., November 27, 1991.
USDOT. Transportation Equity Act for the 2e Century— TEA 21. Washington, D.C., June
9, 1998.
Chapter 2 Demographics & Surveys
ATS (now CAMPO). Transportation Trends in the Austin Metropolitan Area, 1960 to
Present. October 1993.
CAMPO and TxDOT. 1998 Austin Regional Household Travel Survey, Executive Summary.
Prepared by NuStats. February 10, 2000.
CAMPO. 2007, 2015, and 2025 Population and Employment Forecast. Prepared by Hicks
& Company. May 1999.
State of Texas State Data Center. Population and Employment Data by County. 1998.
Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (now TxDOT). Austin
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study — Origin Destination Study. 1962.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census Data. Washington D.C., 1992.
Chapter 3 Environmental & Community Impacts
ATS (now CAMPO) and City of Austin. 1992 Emissions Inventory for the Austin
Metropolitan Area. 1994.
ATS (now CAMPO). Ozone Transport Study. 1997.
City of Austin. Smart Growth Information. 1999.
City of Cedar Park. City of Cedar Park Comprehensive Plan, May 28, 1998.
City of Pflugerville. City of Pflugerville Land Use and Intermodal Thoroughfare Plan: Policy
Recommendations. Prepared by Land Strategies, Inc. April 28, 1998.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Traffic Noise Study on fH 35 and Loop 1. In
cooperation with CAMPO. Austin District, 1997.
CAMPO2025 Transportation Plan 12 - June 12, 2000
TxDOT and CAMPO. 1998 Central Texas On -Road Hydrocarbon Study. 1999.
The University of Texas at Austin and CAMPO. 1996 Emissions Inventory for Austin's
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Draft Report, 1999.
The University of Texas at Austin and CAMPO. Urban Airshed Modeling for Central Texas.
Progress Report, 1998.
United States. Energy Policy Act. Washington D.C., 1992.
United States. Federal -Aid Highway Act. Washington D.C., 1970.
United States. National Environmental Policy Act, as amended. Washington D.C., 1969.
United States. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Nondiscrimination in Federally
Assisted Programs (42 U.S.C. 2000(d)- 2000(d)(1). Washington D.C., July 2, 1964.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Air Act Amendments. Washington
D.C., 1990.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low - Income
Populations (6640.23). Washington D.C., December 2, 1998.
United States DOT, FHWA. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States — Problem and
Response. Publication No. FHWA -PD -97 -064. August 1997.
United States DOT. Order on Environmental Justice (DOT Order 5610.2). Washington
D.C., April 15, 1997.
United States Office of the President. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low - Income Populations.
Washington D.C., February 11, 1994.
Chapter 4 Public Transportation System
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Various Data. November 1999 - February
2000.
TxDOT. 1998 Texas Transit Statistics. July 1999.
Carter - Burgess. Austin -San Antonio Commuter Rail Study, Final Report. July 1999.
Chapter 5 Congestion Management Program
CAMPO and the Congestion Management System Working Group. Corridor Mobility Plan.
1999.
Chapter 6 Bicycle & Pedestrian System
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide for
the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, D.C., 1999.
Austin Transportation Study (now called Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization —
CAMPO). Public Opinion Survey. 1994.
ATS ( CAMPO). Public Opinion Survey. 1997.
CAMPO. Travel Survey. 1998-1999.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan
12 -2 June 12, 2000
TDM Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. Transportation Demand
Management Tool Kit. 1998.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census Data. 1992.
United States Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles. January
1994.
United States DOT, FHWA. The National Bicycling and Walking Study, Report No. FHWA-
PD-94-041, 1994.
Chapter 7 Roadway System
CAMPO. 2007, 2015, and 2025 Population and Employment Forecast. Prepared by Hicks
& Company. May 1999.
CAMPO. Travel Survey. Conducted by Turner Collie & Braden Inc. and Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 1998 -1999.
CAMPO. Transportation Modeling. Performed by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas,
Inc. 1999 -2000.
Chapter 8 Freight Facilities
Austin Transportation Study (now CAMPO). Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan.
December 1994.
CAMPO and TxDOT. Draft Austin Area Travel Survey, Executive Summary. Prepared by
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. December 1999.
TxDOT. Effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement on the Texas Highway
System. December 1998.
TxDOT. Vehicle Classification Reports. 1990 —1996.
TxDOT, Austin District, Advanced Project Development Office. IH 35 /SH 130 Through
Truck Diversion Analysis. Glenn McVey and Cheng -Chen Kou. February 12, 1998.
Texas Transportation Institute. Origin - Destination Survey & Multimodal Assessment for the
Austin -San Antonio Corridor. Prepared for TxDOT. March 1997.
Weinstein & Associates. Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Austin -San Antonio
Corridor Project. August 1997.
Chapter 9 Financial Plan
Austin Transportation Study (now CAMPO). Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan.
December 1994.
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Financial data. 1999 -2000.
City of Austin, Public Works and Transportation Department. Financial data. 1999 -2000.
City of Cedar Park. Financial data. 2000.
City of Leander. Financial data. 2000.
City of Pflugerville. Financial data. 2000.
City of Round Rock. Financial data. 2000.
CAMPO 205 Transportation Plan 12 -3 June 12, 2000
TxDOT, Austin District. Financial data. 1999 -2000.
TxDOT, Texas Turnpike Authority Division. Financial data. 1999 -2000.
Travis County, Transportation and Natural Resources. Financial data. 1999 -2000.
Williamson County. Financial Data. 2000.
-• i
Chapter 10 Transportation Plan Policies
Austin Transportation Study (now CAMPO). Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan.
December 1994.
ATS ( CAMPO). Public Opinion Survey. Prepared by Opinion Analysts, Inc. April 1994.
ATS (CAMPO). Public Opinion Survey. Prepared by Opinion Analysts, Inc. April 1997.
CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan 12 June 12, 2000
Funding:
Cost: $0
Source of funds: N/A
Outside Resources: N/A
DATE: October 19, 2001
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting - October 25, 2001
ITEM: 9.F.1. Consider a resolution approving and endorsing the Capital Area
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization's (CAMPO)
2025 Transportation Plan.
Resource: Jim Nuse, Public Works Director
Tom Word, Chief Traffic Engineer
History: As part of a federally required metropolitan planning activity, CAMPO adopted
the CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan. This plan was developed cooperatively
with local governmental entities and contains all the roads that are in Round
Rock's Transportation Master Plan. CAMPO has requested member jurisdictions
to adopt the CAMPO 2025 Plan as a condition of receiving Federal
Transportation funds.
Impact/Benefrt: Round Rock citizens benefit from coordinated transportation planning in the
region.
Public Comment: N/A
Sponsor: N/A