AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Pro-rail group: Austin rail line would draw hoards of riders
www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/07/12/pro-rail-group-austin-rail-line-would-draw-hoards.html?ana=RSS%26s%3Darticle_search&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_austin+(Austin+Business+Journal)

"That's near the ridership achieved by Boston's popular green line of 7,162 people on board per mile per day, the Central Austin CDC claims."

Seriously, that's not setting off warning signs for anyone else? They claim we'd immediately have ridership almost as good as the best line in the country?

And approximately the same total ridership, at one third the length, as the 25 year ridership of the 2000 plan.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

"That's near the ridership achieved by Boston's popular green line of 7,162 people on board per mile per day, the Central Austin CDC claims."

Seriously, that's not setting off warning signs for anyone else? They claim we'd immediately have ridership almost as good as the best line in the country?

And approximately the same total ridership, at one third the length, as the 25 year ridership of the 2000 plan.

With almost double the population in the segment area, though right, than there was in 2000, so that would easily explain the discrepancy. Temporal factors matter bro.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

With almost double the population in the segment area, though right, than there was in 2000, so that would easily explain the discrepancy. Temporal factors matter bro.

How is there almost double the population, when many of those census tracts _lost_ population?

http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...opulation.html



And again, that was the 25 year ridership projection. So it was projecting out to what the population growth would have been after 25 years of growth and infill (in 2025).


Edit: source:

https://austinrailnow.files.wordpres...-nov-1999_.pdf

Ridership Forecast (2025) 37,400 average weekday boardings

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

How is there almost double the population, when many of those census tracts _lost_ population?

http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...opulation.html



And again, that was the 25 year ridership projection. So it was projecting out to what the population growth would have been after 25 years of growth and infill (in 2025).


Edit: source:

https://austinrailnow.files.wordpres...-nov-1999_.pdf

Ridership Forecast (2025) 37,400 average weekday boardings

Ah, well, you win on that on sort-of. Yes, total population fell, but population that could realistically take advantage of rail increased per the article linked:

"Again, I predict the data will show that the declining populations are caused by shifting demographics rather than declining demand for the neighborhoods. Singles and couples without children are displacing larger households in these older, expensive central neighborhoods. It would take more housing at 2000's occupancy rate just to maintain the 2000 population. Throw in higher vacancy rates caused by the recession and you have mild population loss."

Furthermore, there's been significant residential development over the last six years since the recession along this route. Must of our core's population growth has been since the recession not before, so 2010's population number is actually simply illusory.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But you couldn't even run it to the airport (terminal). You'd have to run it to the Hilton.

The statute is very explicit. Hotels, not airports.

IMO the statute pretty strictly channels the money into things like a hotel/attractions-only shuttle or trolley. I don't see how you can obey the terms and end up with anything resembling rail.

EDIT: and also, that money's earmarked for the convention center expansion, people. Hands off.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Ah, well, you win on that on sort-of. Yes, total population fell, but population that could realistically take advantage of rail increased per the article linked:

"Again, I predict the data will show that the declining populations are caused by shifting demographics rather than declining demand for the neighborhoods. Singles and couples without children are displacing larger households in these older, expensive central neighborhoods. It would take more housing at 2000's occupancy rate just to maintain the 2000 population. Throw in higher vacancy rates caused by the recession and you have mild population loss."

Certainly. And a higher level analysis (looking at trip demand, not just gross population) could take that into account.

But their model just looks at gross population.

Edit: As I've always said, I firmly believe G/L would be a good successful rail route. But before committing any money we need a real updated study and a real price tag.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Furthermore, there's been significant residential development over the last six years since the recession along this route. Must of our core's population growth has been since the recession not before, so 2010's population number is actually simply illusory.

But they make their claims off the 2010 population! That's what they used in their model (which to a certain extent I agree with, ACS population estimates at a census tract level don't seem particularly reliable).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4U...d5YTVTY0U/view

(linked from the story above)

"2016 Central Austin CDC Guadalupe-N Lamar Minimum Operable Segment

Route: Guadalupe at 4th Street, North on Guadalupe/Lavaca to North Lamar to Airport Blvd.

Length: 5.3 miles

10 Stations

Northern Terminus: Crestview Station at North Lamar and Airport Blvd

Southern Terminus: Republic Square at Guadalupe and 4th Streets

2010 Population: 44,631

Jobs, 2011, 1⁄2 mile: 184227

Average Weekday Ridership: 34,000 +/- 9,000"

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Certainly. And a higher level analysis (looking at trip demand, not just gross population) could take that into account.

But their model just looks at gross population.

Edit: As I've always said, I firmly believe G/L would be a good successful rail route. But before committing any money we need a real updated study and a real price tag.



But they make their claims off the 2010 population! That's what they used in their model (which to a certain extent I agree with, ACS population estimates at a census tract level don't seem particularly reliable).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4U...d5YTVTY0U/view

(linked from the story above)

"2016 Central Austin CDC Guadalupe-N Lamar Minimum Operable Segment

Route: Guadalupe at 4th Street, North on Guadalupe/Lavaca to North Lamar to Airport Blvd.

Length: 5.3 miles

10 Stations

Northern Terminus: Crestview Station at North Lamar and Airport Blvd

Southern Terminus: Republic Square at Guadalupe and 4th Streets

2010 Population: 44,631

Jobs, 2011, 1⁄2 mile: 184227

Average Weekday Ridership: 34,000 +/- 9,000"

Well they should not have... I'm not saying their method was right, I'm saying their results actually seem reasonable when you don't think they do.

[nixcity]

Their methodology for arriving at those numbers was done by similar programs used by Project Connect for the 2014 estimates and those used by the feds, unfortunately they were unable to use the exact program which is why you see the big +/- 9,000 discrepancy (which is huge, but still puts it at a minimum of 23,000 which is still absolutely amazing and a great ROI).
They were also unable to get accurate numbers which is why they went with the guaranteed 2010 numbers so you can imagine adding a few thousand to the population numbers. But what really gets this train full is that STAGGERING amount of jobs within reach of the stations which will only be increasing as the state boosts its jobs. Nothing the city is offering up for this bond can come close to the ROI on this and definitely does not push for the mode shift that we so desperately need in one of our very few North/South corridors.
Also, transit expert Jeff Wood agrees with the cost estimate.
I have a few more things to say, but need more time to do find sources, should have time later today.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Their methodology for arriving at those numbers was done by similar programs used by Project Connect for the 2014 estimates and those used by the feds, unfortunately they were unable to use the exact program which is why you see the big +/- 9,000 discrepancy (which is huge, but still puts it at a minimum of 23,000 which is still absolutely amazing and a great ROI).

Uh, no. They used a formula developed by the TCRP, which uses
1) population
2) jobs
3) % at grade
4) cost of parking in CBD

There was no analysis of actual trip demand and trip patterns (for instance, checking that the populations you're connecting to the jobs are the populations filling those jobs). For instance, connecting students in West Campus to state jobs downtown.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4U...d5YTVTY0U/view
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs...rp_rpt_167.pdf

It's very, very different from both the 2014 plan analysis and the FTA.

Edit: I will add it's an interesting algorithm, and I'll be playing around with it. And I'll applaud the CACDC guys for finally releasing a press release that isn't simply copying the 2000 light rail number.

The fact that they cheated in step 2 for the UT campus doesn't give me great confidence, though.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

But what really gets this train full is that STAGGERING amount of jobs within reach of the stations which will only be increasing as the state boosts its jobs.

I need to play around with how they're getting their job numbers.

Something doesn't seem to add up.

They're now claiming 184227 jobs within a half mile of this 5 mile MOS.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4U...d5YTVTY0U/view

They were _previously_ claiming only 171,206 jobs within a half mile of their much larger line (the one that goes all the way from rundberg to pleasant valley).

http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...light_rail.htm

So they either screwed up before (and still have it up on their site) or they're screwing up now.

[Novacek]

So it's an interesting model.

But it's _extremely_ sensitive to the jobs data.
You can halve the population and still get 80% of the ridership. But halve the jobs and ridership drops to 13k.

Interesting for first-pass approximations, and if I ever get the time it'd be interesting to plug in the 2014 rail stations into it, but I wouldn't want to design a system based off it.


Based on this ridership model alone, it looks like the ideal system to build would be just between downtown and campus. And not on Guadalupe, but in the middle of campus so you actually pick up all those jobs without cheating.

Basically the middle section of the 2014 plan, from 4th/Trinity up to San Jacinto/Dean Keaton. 2 miles, really cheap.


Edit: Also based on this model, CACDC's MOS shouldn't go up to Crestview. It should go on 2222 to Highland, and pick up all those jobs there (since we're just playing connect the dots).

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So it's an interesting model.

But it's _extremely_ sensitive to the jobs data.
You can halve the population and still get 80% of the ridership. But halve the jobs and ridership drops to 13k.

Interesting for first-pass approximations, and if I ever get the time it'd be interesting to plug in the 2014 rail stations into it, but I wouldn't want to design a system based off it.


Based on this ridership model alone, it looks like the ideal system to build would be just between downtown and campus. And not on Guadalupe, but in the middle of campus so you actually pick up all those jobs without cheating.

Basically the middle section of the 2014 plan, from 4th/Trinity up to San Jacinto/Dean Keaton. 2 miles, really cheap.


Edit: Also based on this model, CACDC's MOS shouldn't go up to Crestview. It should go on 2222 to Highland, and pick up all those jobs there (since we're just playing connect the dots).

See... this is why commuter rail* on MoPac was so important and you've hit all the right points because generally you know what you're talking about even if I nitpick around the edges and call what I see as bullshit out: it's about connecting commuters to their jobs. 2222/MoPac is a decent commercial cluster with the potential for parking lot replacement and denser development, etc. and that's true of a lot of the potential station placements along this route. I wonder if the significant factor driving the rail line's decision to back out was San Antonio, rather than Austin, where heavy industry is still a thing and railyards are still huge and used aplenty as opposed to in Austin where rail has historically been on a decline relative to other industry and heavy industry has never been predominant.

*In this post rail and commuter rail are used in distrinct ways. Commuter rail is for passengers and rail is for freight.

[Novacek]

For morbid curiosity, I went through and tried their technique on the 2014 plan station locations.

181,955 jobs.


Basically the same as what they claim for their MOS.

Even with just a population of 20k (it's more than this) this produces a ridership of 27k.

[nixcity]

Been out of town so will try to address now.

not in the slightest.

The corridor plans are current, within the past couple of years. They literally _just_ finished the Guadalupe plan.

Most of the corridor work came from the 2010 and 2012 bonds, work on the GL corridor for rail was done "in consideration" for the 2014 bond. And to be honest you can still use a lot of the work from 2000, the changes are really quite simple, especially for this short MOS.

Quick, what was the proposed 2000 light rail profile through the drag?

Again, this is quite easy to come up with, they had the exact positions of the stations, which is what was used recently for the estimates and as shown here by Mr. Henry, the alignment would be able to retain 2 lanes of traffic for most of it.
https://austinrailnow.com/2014/12/09...amar-corridor/
And the final plans and alignment would be extremely easy to finalize for this route.

Now there's a way to split the vote and get status quo (nothing). Or possibly worse, just (5) the surburban roads.

Nope, the sidewalk and bike plan would pass easily and the suburban roads (MLK, Parmer and 620) are already tied into the corridor plans.

Or what happens if all of those bonds pass (including the MOS "plan" with no price tag).

It does have a price tag and I wouldn't even mind the road expansion plan passing as long as at least one of the other options passed as well.

Are you aware the full sidewalk plan is over a billion and well beyond any proposed tax increase?

Actually, as shown here, they were asking for $410 million.
http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...rches-council/

True. Plus, I think some of the corridor plans even have complete separation of bus traffic. This could definitely make adding in rail in those corridors more feasible later on.

I used to think that as well because it certainly sounds logical, but it never works out that way. Citizens get tired of spending money on the exact same corridor.

Pro-rail group: Austin rail line would draw hoards of riders
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...siness+Journal)

Thanks for posting, you beat me to it, also, the Houston Business Journal picked it up as well.

It seems like most people are in agreement about where rail should go, it is beyond frustration that our actual transit agencies haven't taken this up, it seems capmetro is busy twiddling its thumbs and making up excuses (yes some are valid but other cities with similar issues are not seeing this decline) while they once again report another 5% decrease in ridership. The only places where ridership has increased is where they increased frequency which is what many of us urbanists have been wanting for years.

[nixcity]

Based on this ridership model alone, it looks like the ideal system to build would be just between downtown and campus. And not on Guadalupe, but in the middle of campus so you actually pick up all those jobs without cheating.

Basically the middle section of the 2014 plan, from 4th/Trinity up to San Jacinto/Dean Keaton. 2 miles, really cheap.


Edit: Also based on this model, CACDC's MOS shouldn't go up to Crestview. It should go on 2222 to Highland, and pick up all those jobs there (since we're just playing connect the dots)

The problem with this is that then it becomes very difficult to extend further north if you go down the middle of UT, not to mention they wouldn't allow it. And YES, it should continue north, at least to the transit center and hopefully all the way up to IH35 to create a true alternative BUT as you know that would increase the cost too much (especially to get across Airport) and since our city is hell bent on serving the car first our bond for an MOS needs to be cheap. I would gladly exchange the road pork for a much longer line.

[nixcity]

There was no analysis of actual trip demand and trip patterns (for instance, checking that the populations you're connecting to the jobs are the populations filling those jobs)

capmetro could finish that out quite easily and quickly.

Even with just a population of 20k (it's more than this) this produces a ridership of 27k.

Which is not too far off what they Project Connect projected which helps me buy into the lower end of the ballpark figure they estimate for the MOS. On the MOS proposal you get more than QUADRUPLE the population which will be key once expanded further to the north and to the south.

I hope you guys are emailing your council representative. Getting this done during a presidential election could really give us a great opportunity to start getting people out of their cars.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

The problem with this is that then it becomes very difficult to extend further north if you go down the middle of UT, not to mention they wouldn't allow it.

What do you mean "wouldn't allow it"?

UT _wants_ it in the middle of campus. That's why they wanted it there in the 2014 plan.

Because it's more central to campus, especially in their long term plans as they expand eastward.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

capmetro could finish that out quite easily and quickly.

Easily and quickly?

In a month with no budget?

These are questions that need answer _before_ a rail bond.

[nixcity]

UT _wants_ it in the middle of campus. That's why they wanted it there in the 2014 plan.

To me I see that as east not central, but again, the main issue is that it can then no longer be expanded north.

[nixcity]

These are questions that need answer _before_ a rail bond

Not necessarily, a few other cities have done it this way, including Houston, but yes, ideally the city would have been working on this already, its a real shame they haven't.