AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Yeah, you are right, the place we want to put it, MANY OF THE MILES IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE AS 2000, is way more dense than it was then.

Actually, no. Many of those central Austin census tracts actually _lost_ population.

Those that gained (west campus) are going E/W, not N/S. The feds don't just look at population, they look at trips.

Which you have to model. Which is why you plan _before_ route selection.

And it's a different system, you're proposing the bottom third of what was proposed. What's the performance without the upper third? I don't know, you have to model it.

Originally Posted by nixcity

This would be the same process as proposed in the 2014 proposition.

The 2014 proposition planned first, then did route selection. Over a multi-year process

It didn't just "Choose this route,with no planning, within a few months, because the CACDC played connect the dots".

[nixcity]

Here is a link, you will hear the chair of the committee speak here.

http://austintx.swagit.com/play/05102016-1191/3/
They have brought it up in literally every UTC meeting for the last months, they push for it as well on social media.

[nixcity]

It's the CACDC pushing for this two stage approach. And they're the ones giving this $100-$120M number.

What is _their_ background and technical expertise, anything to suggest that number isn't ass-pulled?

They have been working with UTC, engineers and rail experts for years.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

They have been working with UTC, engineers and rail experts for years.

He brought it up in citizen communication (not "working with the UTC").

All the numbers came from him.

He claims that rail could be running (bear in mind, all the engineering, design, and environmental clearances would come after the vote) in 2-3 years after a November vote (around 7:52 in the video).

This is your "expert"?


Despite what you said above, he explicit said to do it without matching federal funds.


He proposes using a TIF for capital construction funds, but doesn't actually know what goes into creating one.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Here is a link, you will hear the chair of the committee speak here.

http://austintx.swagit.com/play/05102016-1191/3/
They have brought it up in literally every UTC meeting for the last months, they push for it as well on social media.

There was no vote during the entire 11 minutes of the citizen's communication.

Where was this supposed vote?

[nixcity]

http://austintx.swagit.com/play/05102016-1191/13/

Unanimous

[nixcity]

The person that proposes using a TIF is a committee member, I know what he said, I made reference to that, I propose using federal match, he proposes having us pay for the whole thing, less than $500 million. He was chair of UTC for years, far more expertise than you or I will ever have. But he, along with others, are working together, engineers, experts and UTC, past and present.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

http://austintx.swagit.com/play/05102016-1191/13/

Unanimous

Thank you, that's was the right link.

Unanimous for the council to consider some sort of rail. Which, as they said in the meeting, was exactly what they did before.

So there's actually no news here.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

The person that proposes using a TIF is a committee member

No he isn't.

He was, but he's not anymore.

Originally Posted by nixcity

But he, along with others, are working together, engineers, experts and UTC, past and present.

Coming up and talking nonsense for a few minutes during citizen communication is not "working with the UTC"

[nixcity]

The news is that it is still moving forward and has a decent chance (especially if transit advocates like you push for it) of making it to a bond vote. The man speaking was former chair of UTC, they have also had a presence in the Mobility committee, work with rail experts such as Lyndon Henry and already have expertise (you know from actually working in the field and on committees), definitely not nonsense.
Just because you are out of the loop doesn't mean these things happen, all of this continues to move forward despite your constant naysaying.....

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

definitely not nonsense.

The idea that a rail system could be designed, engineered, pass environmental clearances, order and receive rail vehicles, build maintenance facilities, and be built and running 2 years after a bond vote is total nonsense.

The idea that TIF of a small system could contribute any significant portion of the capital expense of building that system is nonsense. And if you use TIF for that, what's going to pay the significant (and non-linear) operating expenses?

[nixcity]

You need to listen to what he said man, he said 2-4 years to finish for all the prework, and then he restates to the next question 2-3 years for the preconstruction to be done. He suggests THE EXACT SAME PROCESS AS THE 2014 VOTE!!! And Mr. Clements never advocates for TIF. Why am I wasting my time with you again....?!

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

You need to listen to what he said man, he said 2-4 years to finish for all the prework, and then he restates to the next question 2-3 years for the preconstruction to be done.

No, he didn't.

Listen to the damn video. ~7:35 in the citizen communication.

"the other one is time.

If we do put a bond forward and it does get approved in november, when would the timeline then be say light rail starts running.
In your estimate, best estimate.

I would think 2 to 3 years would be the best estimate."


2 years to start running, after the vote, is nonsense.

Originally Posted by nixcity

He suggests THE EXACT SAME PROCESS AS THE 2014 VOTE!!!

Not in the slightest.

The 2014 vote process started at least in 2012. There was a selection process for the alignment and the route.
The design was something like 30% done.
We knew the exact alignment of the route. We knew the specific streets and the profiles of each (where it was going into existing RoW, where into new, where it was taking parking).
We knew where the stations were proposed, and how many stations. We knew where park and ride lots were going to be.

And each of those had cost estimates created by actual professionals. And then that had a contingency buffer added. And then those numbers were inflation adjusted (is his number in 2016 dollars? Or 2000 dollars? Or 2018 dollars? We don't know).

Originally Posted by nixcity

And Mr. Clements never advocates for TIF.

Yes he does. He's the one advocating it.

3:39 in the video

"I've heard you float the idea before that there's a way to pay for this without raising bonding capacity. do you have any idea on that? How do we pay for this without having to seek voter approval? You've had some ideas.

Well there are a number of tools. Tax incremental finance districts"

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

a MOS at MOST would be $450 million

That "estimate" of $75 M /mile seems highly suspect.

Houston's most recent extensions (which therefore would exclude some one-time costs) was running ~$130 /mile.

[urbancore]

Just got a ride using Arcade City Austin. Highly recommend.

[Novacek]

I haven't seen this posted/discussed yet. Slides from a public meeting about the Guadalupe corridor planning

http://austintexas.gov/sites/default...ed_Concept.pdf

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I haven't seen this posted/discussed yet. Slides from a public meeting about the Guadalupe corridor planning

http://austintexas.gov/sites/default...ed_Concept.pdf

Couple notes:

1. Nueces bike lane diversion. I'm okay with this. Many cyclists take this route anyways since Guad right now is a hot mess right there.

2. The 24th St before/after. I think this should really be a bike/reg/reg/bike combo rather than bike+reg/center/reg/bike combo.

3. There's no conceptualization of the bus stops. How will they interact with the continuing bike lanes? Would like to see a pedestrian island for bus stops so waiting riders aren't caught out in the bike lane while they wait for/board the bus.


Otherwise, I'm excited to see some major improvements to the corridor. Now if we can get that to extend up to/past the Triangle as well, that would be awesome.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

Couple notes:

1. Nueces bike lane diversion. I'm okay with this. Many cyclists take this route anyways since Guad right now is a hot mess right there.

In fact, I believe Nueces was originally intended to be the bike boulevard instead of Rio Grande.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...-down-1/nRrrL/

So maybe this can help push for further bike infrastructure lower down on Nueces

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

2. The 24th St before/after. I think this should really be a bike/reg/reg/bike combo rather than bike+reg/center/reg/bike combo.

Yeah, I'm not sure why that center turn lane is so necessary.

Maybe that little zig the Nueces diverted traffic does necessitates it?

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

3. There's no conceptualization of the bus stops. How will they interact with the continuing bike lanes? Would like to see a pedestrian island for bus stops so waiting riders aren't caught out in the bike lane while they wait for/board the bus.

I imagine it'll be like the current Metrorapid stops, where the stop/shelter is directly adjacent to the transit lane.
Whether that means the bike lane runs behind (though probably that would take some sidewalk space?) or means that the bike lane gets shared with the transit lane (which happens downtown some) I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

Otherwise, I'm excited to see some major improvements to the corridor. Now if we can get that to extend up to/past the Triangle as well, that would be awesome.

This is definitely the critical (and most congested) section. But it also sets the precedent of incrementally extending the transit-only lanes. Once you've done it once, you can do it again, as the budget allows without a huge ballot measure.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Regarding VMUs on South Lamar and specifically pedestrian walkways, I have noticed that it's become a patchwork. Each VMU has nice wide sidewalks but some have shade trees planted and others do not. Also once your done walking in front of a VMU the sidewalk either shrinks back to the typical small neighborhood sized slabs or disappears all together. It would be nice if the city could expand the great streets program though on a less grand scale to what they are doing DT and bring more cohesive sidewalks along the major thoroughfares, at the very least make sure the sidewalks connect rather than one stretch of sidewalk and the next grass.

Like I said, they are doing a South Lamar corridor study as well.

https://www.austintexas.gov/department/corridor-studies

Like all the corridor programs, $ is the big problem. And then Lamar has the additional problem of extremely limited RoW.

Edit: it looks like the final report for that is now available.

[KevinFromTexas]

Red Bud Trail bridge plans.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...Lake_PLANS.pdf