Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
Super excited to see this area densify over time. This will help with rail numbers, too, once people start living there because VMUs start really going up.
Also, I really think the best strategy going forward is simply expanding the red line in conjunction with adding a downtown streetcar circulator and an equivalent amount of money in the same ballot package going to road projects. Add a few in-town red line stops (I'd add stops at Airport and Bruning and change development policy there toward VMU -- there'd be neighborhood support here, at Hancock Center, where there would also be neighborhood support for denser development there provided they got certain concessions, just north of Manor Road, and at 7th) and extend the red line west with three new stops (between Brazos and Congress, between Lavaca and Guadalupe, and a small terminal station at 4th and Rio Grande).
You'll have a greater impact on development policy that way. Which is really the main goal of rail lines, because new residential patterns fundamentally alter the way we interact with transportation infrastructure. It isn't always about gaining the most riders initially, it's about playing the long development game. The ridership numbers are only important politically, where future citizen support is conditional upon factors that citizens believe are normatively important (such as high ridership, which both the polity and elites believe is normatively important here). Yes, you may take some commuters and incidental trips off the roads, especially during peak hours, but the bigger goal is to shift the trajectory of road line mile usage per capita by changing development patterns throughout a city. So when you hear someone talk about ridership to the exclusion, they're either willfully ignoring the bigger picture because they recognize they have to play to what the voters want to hear (this variety is common among rail supporters), they're too stupid to recognize what's actually going on (people who are
And one of the central reasons why this is a good idea?
1. It increases future tax revenue because these new developments centered around rail stations are more taxable per square foot of land than any alternative use.
2. It decreases the total funds we have to spend relative to what we'd be spending if we just had to maintain our roads. The reason this is the case is because roads are more expensive to maintain over the long run. This is the proper comparison to maintenance costs, not the maintenance that we spend on buses.
Whenever someone says they prefer buses over rail, I always reply that they're making this a false either/or choice. What they're essentially saying is that they want cars to remain the dominant mode of transportation in American life, whether they happen to be a car with just you or you and many others.
|
I'm generally in agreement on this, but as Novacek pointed out later, running the current Metrorail vehicles across Downtown is problematic. They are also a problem for the extra stop spacing because the vehicles do not brake and accelerate as fast as light rail, and the signal system does not work well with short stop spacing. CapMetro has struggled with the signals between Crestview and Highland Stations from day one.
If the Red Line were to be upgraded to electric light rail, at least between Braker Station and Downtown, I think what you are suggesting would work well. That would require additional tracking to completely separate freight from passenger rail, as well as electrification, and new vehicles, so it would not be inexpensive.
One advantage to this scenario is that the current Metrorail vehicles could be repurposed for the Green Line, which would probably need to terminate at the Y in East Austin and transfer to light rail into Downtown.
Light rail vehicles could also navigate the tight 90 degree turns into the Seaholm District that the Metrorail vehicles cannot.