View Single Post
  #1886  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 2:29 PM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
Yes, I absolutely am talking about you. We have no way of knowing where you work; JMVC, for instance, has a strong incentive to make it look like investments in commuter rail expansion and Rapid Bus won't prevent the city's urban rail project from going forward, even though he knows full well they will not. There are others whose bread is buttered very thoroughly on Capital Metro's side who would have similar incentives to mislead, anonymously.

You've been impugning MY credibility this whole time, even though I do NOT post anonymously. And when I said, directly, that there's not enough rail dollars to go around (and that Rapid Bus investments will preclude urban rail on Guadalupe), you got curiously silent.

This isn't a personal attack; this is an effort to expose somebody who may not be contributing on the level. If you don't like it, contribute without impugning; contribute without trying to assert insider status; or let us know some details that can relieve our suspicion. There's really not a lot of valid reasons you shouldn't be able to identify yourself unless you DO have one of these conflicts of interest I mention above.
Does JMVC = John Michael Cortez? What does the V stand for?

Sorry, dude, I already told you that you were way off base. There really isn't any point to your guessing - you aren't ever going to guess my identity.

I don't have any ulterior motives other than as a transit advocate. As imperfect as Cap Metro is, I tend to stand up or them because they are OUR transit agency, and nobody else ever seems willing to do so. Cap Metro was birthed and exists in an extremely hostile anti-transit climate. The old boy road warrior network, and their hacks like Ben Wear, have had a heyday with Cap Metro from day one. It really irks me to see supposed transit advocates piling on at every opportunity.

So, yesterday I got through the Drag in under 5 minutes. If it weren't for catching a red light at Dean Keeton, I wouldn't have had to stop at all.

I really do think it would be ideal (from a transit perspective) to have dedicated lanes on the Drag - I'm just having a very difficult time imagining it. I mean, look at the hysteria over the Nueces Bike Bouevard! Can you imagine the uproar if Guadalupe was reduced to a single travel lane in each direction? It is already one of the most congested segments of roadway in the city.

Even with a comprehensive urban rail network, there will probably always be a need for local buses on the Drag. The total number of buses might be reduced somewhat, but there will still be a need to serve stops between the limited stops on the corridor, and some routes like the 5 will probably never be converted to rail.

If an exclusive center median trackway was introduced, cars and buses would have to share a single lane, and cars would get stuck behind bus stops. That doesn't seem very viable. South of 24th, the roadway section could be widened by eliminating bike lanes, parking and narrowing the already too narrow sidewalks. Not a very multi-modal approach. North of 24th, road widening would require demolition of historic, semi-historic and recently constructed buildings.

The most viable short term solution would be to have urban rail and buses share a lane. That would have to be the right lane, since buses only have doors on the right side. It would, in effect, be a shared lane, because cars would have to be allowed to enter the lane to make right turns. Fortunately, there are relatively few right turns into campus. Unless the local bus stops were reduced in number, the urban rail would get stuck behind every stopped bus, limiting speed. It seems like fairly limited transit benefit for a lot of automobile pain. I'd get behind it, but how many typical car driving citizens would?

That's why I think the only viable long term solution is a tunnel section under the Drag. Many older streetcar cities, like Boston, Toronto, and San Francisco, have tunnel segments for their streetcar systems. San Francisco is particularly interesting if you haven't experienced it. The MUNI LRVs are somewhat shorter than standard LRVs, and somewhat longer than typical streetcars. They operate mostly in two car consists, and in outer residential areas operate mostly in streetcar mode (and very slowly I might add). Once they enter the Market Street Tunnel (above the BART subway) they fly through Downtown at remarkable speed. On the surface of Market, there are more streetcars, buses, bike lanes, taxi stands and connections to historic cable cars for more local travel. It is a triple decker, multi-modal, transit extravaganza!

I'd like to think that Austin might one day have the multi-modal system it deserves. After all, Austin is on the verge of surpassing San Francisco in population (within City limits, not MSA). That will require citizens to stop fighting Cap Metro at every turn, and get behind whatever modest transit improvements can be made, instead of fighting tooth and nail for their own private visions of the perfect transit system.
Reply With Quote