AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by migol24

Why did he oppose the Light Rail?

He was shortsighted. He claimed, quite correctly, that it would disrupt his business. He wasn't taking the view that it would help his business long term, even though it quite evidently would in two ways: 1) it would transport higher share of urban customers to his doorstep, and 2) it would incentivize dense residential development in the area - people who would quite likely have been customers. He was an idiot. The line would have been fully functional by now.

[BevoLJ]

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...type=rss_local

People-toting carts must wait for official OK
Ben Wear: Getting There
AAS Published: 6:54 p.m. Sunday, April 24, 2011

First of all, don't call them "golf carts."

The City of Austin wants you to know that Chris Nielsen's fleet of five open-air, eh, conveyances should be called "electric low-speed vehicles." And various members of Austin law enforcement for the past few years have been letting Nielsen know that the carts (doh!) are not exactly welcome in downtown Austin.

"They keep writing tickets," Nielsen, 31 and the owner of Electric Cab of Austin, said last week. "I've been to court over 100 times. They do it because my drivers keep taking tips."

The problem: The city does not have any rules or laws allowing passengers to pay for rides on Nielsen's machines, which are open air, have seats for a driver and three passengers, and have a maximum speed of about 25 mph. So Nielsen has been paid directly by various downtown hotels to shuttle their guests — for free, in theory — to nearby restaurants and other places.

But he says that the hotel guests, abashed at getting a free ride and unaware of the regulatory vacuum, often insist on giving tips to the drivers. And the drivers, being rational economic creatures, have tended to accept the gratuities. Tickets ensue.

...

Nielsen, who also provides rides for fans when there are games at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, said he managed to get an ordinance passed that allows him to operate there "with four phone calls." Here, it's looking as if it might take four years.

"It's always a new reason" to delay, he said. "I just love how this city works."

[KevinFromTexas]

I saw a guy up at the convenience store in my neighborhood with one of those.

So that seems more like an issue of them not having a classification for those cars and approving it as a business and less about them not being street legal. The guy that had one up at the store near our house had Texas plates and tags on it. It had lights and was completely silent.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

He was shortsighted. He claimed, quite correctly, that it would disrupt his business. He wasn't taking the view that it would help his business long term, even though it quite evidently would in two ways: 1) it would transport higher share of urban customers to his doorstep, and 2) it would incentivize dense residential development in the area - people who would quite likely have been customers. He was an idiot. The line would have been fully functional by now.

yup. Totally agree.

Wonder what he thinks now.

[KevinFromTexas]

Businesses like that opposing urban rail isn't anything new. They worry that the construction process will slow their business and that their customers won't come back.

It's also kind of like when some businesses opposed turning their street into a pedestrian only one and insisting it would kill their business. Virtually all of those now are doing more business than before.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Businesses like that opposing urban rail isn't anything new. They worry that the construction process will slow their business and that their customers won't come back.

It is a legitimate concern. Just about any business would have these concerns, even a two month interruption in cash flow could kill many businesses. We all know how constructions companies get hung up during construction for all kinds of reasons slowing down the whole process and also they often seemingly have little regard for the area around them impacted by construction.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Businesses like that opposing urban rail isn't anything new. They worry that the construction process will slow their business and that their customers won't come back.

It's also kind of like when some businesses opposed turning their street into a pedestrian only one and insisting it would kill their business. Virtually all of those now are doing more business than before.

One thing that bugs me is that they don't think of the construction workers. The business that they lose from the work is made up to some degree by the workers on break.

[KevinFromTexas]

It seems silly for people to not go to their favorite business because of road construction in the area. I remember the East 7th Street construction just about killed off the business there. But it seems like such a silly thing to complain about. People want road improvements, but shy away from the area during the construction which kills off the businesses they are loyal to. Those businesses die out and those customers never return since their favorite business is gone. I would make an effort to support those businesses even more during that time. Most of them are local/private and fragile anyway.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

It seems silly for people to not go to their favorite business because of road construction in the area. I remember the East 7th Street construction just about killed off the business there. But it seems like such a silly thing to complain about. People want road improvements, but shy away from the area during the construction which kills off the businesses they are loyal to. Those businesses die out and those customers never return since their favorite business is gone. I would make an effort to support those businesses even more during that time. Most of them are local/private and fragile anyway.

There wasn't much business on 7th to begin with. My best friend's father used to own a restaurant that was put out of business due to construction. That corridor would be much better suited to vertical mixed use development anyway, and so the fact that the businesses went caput isn't really a bad thing for the area in general.

[Myomi]

Question: Why can't the I-35 Bridge be used to cross the lake?

As someone who lived on riverside for 4 years and dealt with this intersection on a daily basis, I know that the southbound frontage road is a crazy mess, especially during rush hour. However, if you look at the map of this area, you can see there is 4 lanes of access road on the northbound side of the highway. At this stretch, between Riverside and Cesar Chavez, I have never seen traffic back up all the way onto the bridge. Obviously I don't have any data to support this, but I feel that this area could stand to lose at least one lane, if not two lanes to facilitate a rail crossing. With some retro fitting, I really think this bridge could handle the rail crossing. Would this mean some tweaking of the rail map? Yes. Would Travis Heights lose it's little stretch...Yes, but I think that's ok since they have stood in the way of density in the past (so we wouldn't really get too much density and height on that side of the river next to the rail anyways). I don't know...am I crazy or is this a feasible way to save some money.

My idea...run rail down Congress (or Trinity or whatever), and have it turn and head east on either 4th or Cesar Chavez. Then, have it head south either on the other side of I-35, or run it down Red River to Rainey. Either option could put a station on Holly/River Street, serving the Rainey Street District. This area is supposed to be one of the densest areas of future residential growth in the city, and one which is already suffering from major traffic problems which are not addressed at all in current rail plans. Plus, now the Rail will also serve part of the Waller Creek area, encouraging development and contributing funds to the TIF. I think the plan also opens up more of downtown to being served by the rail and allows us to cross the River in an area where people won't be so against taking away traffic lanes. Also, it gives more of an opportunity to expand rail to the east side in the future. I don't know...what do you guys think?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Myomi

Question: Why can't the I-35 Bridge be used to cross the lake?

1) Totally out of the way.
2) Traffic moves too fast (even on the frontage) for it to be safe.
3) The current intersection with Riverside does not provide enough room for the vehicles to turn from 35 onto Riverside in both directions. The entire overpass would have to be redone (cost prohibitive).

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Myomi

Question: Why can't the I-35 Bridge be used to cross the lake?

As someone who lived on riverside for 4 years and dealt with this intersection on a daily basis, I know that the southbound frontage road is a crazy mess, especially during rush hour. However, if you look at the map of this area, you can see there is 4 lanes of access road on the northbound side of the highway. At this stretch, between Riverside and Cesar Chavez, I have never seen traffic back up all the way onto the bridge. Obviously I don't have any data to support this, but I feel that this area could stand to lose at least one lane, if not two lanes to facilitate a rail crossing. With some retro fitting, I really think this bridge could handle the rail crossing. Would this mean some tweaking of the rail map? Yes. Would Travis Heights lose it's little stretch...Yes, but I think that's ok since they have stood in the way of density in the past (so we wouldn't really get too much density and height on that side of the river next to the rail anyways). I don't know...am I crazy or is this a feasible way to save some money.

My idea...run rail down Congress (or Trinity or whatever), and have it turn and head east on either 4th or Cesar Chavez. Then, have it head south either on the other side of I-35, or run it down Red River to Rainey. Either option could put a station on Holly/River Street, serving the Rainey Street District. This area is supposed to be one of the densest areas of future residential growth in the city, and one which is already suffering from major traffic problems which are not addressed at all in current rail plans. Plus, now the Rail will also serve part of the Waller Creek area, encouraging development and contributing funds to the TIF. I think the plan also opens up more of downtown to being served by the rail and allows us to cross the River in an area where people won't be so against taking away traffic lanes. Also, it gives more of an opportunity to expand rail to the east side in the future. I don't know...what do you guys think?

I think that is a great idea that might be accomplished with slick engineering and some kind of extension and widening of the eastern access road bridge. The line should then hit the Rainey area, convention center, and then up Cesar Chavez to wherever else it is supposed to go. Eventually, however, another crossing further upstream will be needed to allow for the expansion of service to SOCO, SOLA/Manchaca and beyond.

[Mongo]

OK, I am new to this thread and am by no means an expert and really just an interested party. However, is there any reason not to start with Rapid Bus with dedicated lanes first?

Sounds like lane sharing with rail is nothing more than a larger vehicle stuck in the same traffic. If anyone is going to be stuck in traffic they will do it in their own vehicle. I can understand lane sharing being a feasible alternative only as a last resort or at the end of the longer line.

That said, I believe in Urban rail as a requirement for managed, responsible future growth. However, given the current budget issues, we may need to scale back some of the plans. Why use rail when the maintenance facility is south of the river but really doesn't have a presence south? That makes for an expensive bridge (or retrofit of S. Congress). Add a dedicated lane on Congress from the capital down to Oltorf. Have another from the Red Line along 4th. Have others that are currently outlined by the study. Use shared lanes where it is not feasible (yet). Expand or change format as demand increases.

If done properly, couldn't the dedicated bus lanes be retrofitted to rail in the future? That is, if it is really more efficient for short runs. I understand rail has a different social view than a bus but at what cost. Riverside to the airport, rail. Just makes sense given the distance and right of way for a dedicated line. The efficiencies of rail make it the clear choice.

Also, dedicated bus lines could be augmented with standard buses during events to increase capacity. How many southbound cars would be removed from I35 and Mopac during a UT game if the Red line could actually be fully utilized. The city wants a line out to the long center, ACL is covered. However, much less expensive. How many commuters are going there on a daily basis anyway?

Don't get me wrong, rail would be great but given the additional costs is it worth it? While we may not all like the current incarnation of the Red Line, it is here and we are paying for it. We need to come up with a reasonable solution to take cars off the roads and get people around downtown. I LOVE the proposal for East Riverside. I think that area could be really great and rail is a driving force.

I don't examples of this other than the Austin Chronicle (http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/...4-08/why-rail/) article but is seems to make sense. Some say it would be done for about 1/10th the cost.

I would love to hear your thoughts. I'm just afraid that with a $1B pricetag nothing will happen. Leffingwell and the other politicians are trying to put their stamp on growth in one term in order to show what they did. I would rather have a city that proposes something reasonable over time.

Also, just started reading this thread and love the ideas and comments.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Mongo

OK, I am new to this thread and am by no means an expert and really just an interested party. However, is there any reason not to start with Rapid Bus with dedicated lanes first?

Sounds like lane sharing with rail is nothing more than a larger vehicle stuck in the same traffic.

M1EK - is this your alter ego Just kidding Mongo. If you search for Rapid Bus in this thread, you will find lots of discussion by M1EK on this very subject.

[ATXboom]

The proposed rail system is going to amount to the impact of new orleans street cars...

We are locked in a system of a poor prior decisions and future constraints. So I'm accepting the fact we won't have decent rail here.

I believe austin should do its best to reinvent/experiment with new modes of mass transit. Its fitting of the city and we should never be a laggard who does things much worse than most other cities.

I don't have any answers... but perhaps having the best car and bike share systems in the world may be the right starting point. Add in a killer rapid bus transit system (yes its not as fast as ROW rail). ...and that's all we can do.

Innovate mass transit. Don't half ass copy.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

I believe austin should do its best to reinvent/experiment with new modes of mass transit. Its fitting of the city and we should never be a laggard who does things much worse than most other cities. Innovate mass transit. Don't half ass copy.

Innovating costs far more money than copying.

Look at Apple vs every other electronic company today for proof.

Austin just needs to live within its means. Not every corridor needs the most expensive solution. Not every city in the world has built subways. Far more cities use trams (streetcars) than subways. Far more use buses than trams. Far more think multimodal than not.

To be different, Austin needs to look at all the potential solutions, not just rail. There's a lot of cheaper modes Austin is overlooking....

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...alleviate.html

Group formed to help alleviate downtown traffic

Austin Business Journal
Date: Friday, April 29, 2011, 1:55pm CDT

Austin community leaders have formed a new association to help alleviate traffic downtown.

The Downtown Austin Transportation Management Association was created to find ways to encourage the more than 90,000 people working in the city core to use fewer cars to commute. The group will coordinate with the Downtown Austin Alliance, city of Austin, Travis County and Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...alleviate.html

I wonder if they have real metrics they can use to see if their association is working?

[JAM]

OK, so it stops short of rail fever gripping the city. But the latest MetroRail boarding numbers indicate that the commuter line’s steady improvement since January has not crested.

Average daily boardings for April were 1,774, the agency says.

That is less than the 2,232 per day in March, but that month included extra service on Friday nights until near midnight, and all-day service on two Saturdays that had more than 3,500 boardings each day.

Take out the ridership of the extra service, and the March average was 1,630 boardings a day. And that figure was boosted by the massive number of strangers in town for the South by Southwest festival, which for several days of its interactive portion was headquartered right by MetroRail’s downtown station

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...ontinue_i.html

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...n-1491509.html

Urban rail backer makes case to ease downtown jams

Ben Wear: Getting There

What's the problem we're trying to fix?

Talk to opponents of the City of Austin's potential $1.3 billion urban rail plan, and it won't be long before that question bubbles up. Their answer, of course, is that the real problem is traffic congestion on highways like MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) and Interstate 35, and that streetcars circulating from Mueller to downtown to East Riverside Drive won't help that at all.

So it was surprising when I had breakfast last week with Cid Galindo, a planning consultant, downtown advocate and erstwhile Austin City Council candidate, to hear him ask that same question about the urban rail plan. In his case, however, he has an answer, one that satisfies him.

Galindo supports urban rail.