AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[WestAustinite]

Originally Posted by urbancore

How much do you estimate our proposed "fully built" rail system would cost when it's completed?

My estimate would be MINIMUM $20B.

Agree $20B minimum. The Megabuilds YouTube channel recently did a profile of the largest projects in the world right now, several of which were rail project. Projects in Sydney and Stuttgart were mentioned and both were north of $30-40B. Melbourne is also doing a huge project. $20B would get you a starter system. Check out the episode - pretty cool.

[Riverranchdrone]

Well we do expect Riverside to become more dense. Maybe Brodie area. Lakeline area had plans to become more dense. A few places along 2222 and 290 could become more dense as well as the 71/35 area. I would keep the light rail inside the inner loop for now if possible.

[OfficialPBreton]

Originally Posted by urbancore

We have density in WC and downtown. That's it.

It may be possible to have "WC like" density at or near the Domain.

So we will shuttle upper middle people in Austin back and forth between downtown and the Domain? Or do you foresee other areas of the metro that will emerge as dense urban cores, if so, where are they?

In your earlier posts, you discuss zoning being the main factor holding back growth - you're absolutely correct. It is the main thing holding back Austin becoming a full-fledged city, instead of its current dysfunctional, hobbled-by-NIMBYs state. We should be moving towards a functional city which (among many other things) allows buildings without limits to height, and allows neighborhoods without limit to density.

Even in its current state, Austin has the capacity to support a light rail system mostly on the density of jobs in downtown and the density of housing in West Campus. With changes to zoning (which is absolutely possible in the next 20 to 50 years), everything inside the 183/71/360 loop can and should be allowed to have dense infill development, which is safer and more beneficial (in myriad ways) to our neighborhoods than their current single family homes.

Originally Posted by urbancore

So how do we develop density in Austin proper to support even 8k per sq mi? Trick question, we can't.

This is so laughably not true. Travis County Census Tract 6.05, which is the NW corner of Wampus, sports a population density of over 4.5k/sqmi. It's home to about 15 5-over-1s, a similar amount of 2/3-story apartment home style complexes, and a single family neighborhood that takes about the same amount of land area as the both the prior structures listed combined. I can almost guarantee that all of those 5-over-1s were built in the past 20 years, and a plurality of the apartment homes-style complexes in the past 50.

This isn't rocket science - it's called building infill townhomes! Basically all of Chicago's suburbs are under 5 stories tall and almost all of it is over 10k/sqmi. Even NORTH UNIVERSITY (Travis County Census Tract 5) has a population density of over 10k/sqmi, and it's considered the "single family homes" part of UT-adjacent neighborhoods!

Originally Posted by urbancore

How is rail better than AI cars?

Transportation is a geography problem. AI cars couldn't solve geography any more than a goldfish could cure cancer.

AI (self driving) cars are CARS - aka, very small independent pods that take up more space per person and add more complexity than any reasonable public transportation option. This means that we have to provide way more space to our transportation system (in a cars' case - roads) to move the average person than in a comparable mass transit scenario. When you have 2 million people in an metro, that's a big deal!

Rail mostly fixes this because it's a more efficient system in terms of land use per person (being both physically more efficient and conceptually), but in cases where density is not high enough (or in our case, not allowed), the system can suffer because ridership is not high enough - a direct result of the City shooting themselves in the foot by restricting needed density!

[OfficialPBreton]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Austin will never have the density of NYC or similarly dense cities for the following reasons;
1) zoning laws would have to be RADICALLY changed RIGHT now.

They (thankfully) are being changed right now.

Originally Posted by urbancore

IF that happened, say goodbye to the beloved Central Austin neighborhoods....think Hyde Park, Clarksville, Rosedale, Zilker, Travis Heights, many more,

I get the appeal of a small-town feel neighborhood, and I understand the nostalgia of pre-boom Austin. But what is actually valuable about these homes? Certainly, the vast majority of the houses built are a dime-a-dozen of their time period, and if you transplanted one to out in the middle of Blanco County it loses its value, since the land is the majority of the value.

The only thing that's actually valuable about these neighborhoods are the memories and the people - it's not the homes. But here's the thing: the past is past and the people either dying1 or being priced out2, or both3.

We shouldn't sacrifice our future just because 100 years ago some developer decided to build a single-family neighborhood in small-town Austin.

1) owns home, has money. see: old
2) doesn't own home, doesn't have money. see: most adults under 65 at this point
3) owns home, doesn't have money.

Originally Posted by urbancore

not too mention our beloved tree canopy and parks.

Trees aren't incompatible with urban development.

Parks are City land and currently not up for development.

Originally Posted by urbancore

2) political will. Very few people who live in Austin want to morph into a city with 20k sq mi. density. Politicians will not vote to increase zoning for 10k+ density for ANY area beyond downtown.

I think take this will age very badly in the next decade.

Originally Posted by urbancore

4) Most deed restrictions beyond downtown will not allow increased density.

Deed restrictions cover a decent amount of West and NW Austin. Not much elsewhere, certainly not in the context of "Austin" today. Additionally, this is assuming the Lege doesn't do anything about them, which may not be a wise assumption.

Originally Posted by urbancore

5) Building rail infrastructure does not magically increase density. Why? See 3 and 4. 3 story apartment complexes close to train depots will not move the density needle.

It doesn't, but it sure as hell makes it easier to attract enough people to fill a more dense building. Which is why, if zoning wasn't so restrictive, we would see more dense buildings around our current infrastructure and less sprawl.

Originally Posted by urbancore

6) Austin's parks, greenbelts, creeks, preserves, aquafer recharge zones, endangered species, prevent a HUGE area in and around the city to be developed AT ALL!

This is hyperbolic. There is enough currently-developable land in Austin to deal with easily double or triple the amount of people if it were allocated relatively efficiently (aka not just in all inhabiting SFH and driving solo). It's comparatively a cake walk to deal with that kind of growth over 50 or 100 years. Hell, from the 90s to the 20s we basically doubled and no Civil Unrest™ or Great Fire has wiped us out.

Originally Posted by urbancore

7) Tree ordinances

These weren't carried down from the mountain and carved in stone tablets. We can change City policies if they don't reflect our needs or values.

Originally Posted by urbancore

8) Building setbacks

See 7.

Originally Posted by urbancore

9) above ground power lines would need to be relocated to support increased density as they would be too close to residents.

Wow. Really? Imagine. Utilities being relocated?? There's no way we could ever do that!

Dude. This is not a problem. We know how to do this - it's just an increased cost. We can tax the developers accordingly - or just make them do it.

Originally Posted by urbancore

10) COA assurance that parcels would be allowed to be subdivided. As it stands now, if you have a home that sits in the middle of a "double lot", the city forces you to tear the house down first, then apply for subdivision with zero certainty that the COA will approve it. This will cost you min $50-100K just to possible hear, no we will not allow you to subdivide your property.

This problem is actively being worked on by City staff. Council directed them to look at streamlining the subdivision process in support of HOME Phase 2. Also -> See 7.

Originally Posted by urbancore

Separately, in NYC. Rail use peaked in 1920-40's and is barely 1/2 of those numbers in 2023. Why are the citizens of America's most populous, most dense city using the most extensive subway system FAR less than they once did.

Just in case you don't get it - NYC is relatively similarly sized to its 1940s self but car ownership in the US has risen dramatically. If your question is "why did car ownership rise dramatically post 1940s?" there's plenty of content out there for you on that and hint: its linked to "Urban Renewal".

Originally Posted by urbancore

Instead of paying for rail to be built and hoping on hope that density will increase 500%, only to then subsidize it to the tune of $30k/yr per rider (if memory serves). I propose we subsidize the working poor to take AI cars when they roll out in the near future.

AI cars

Density does not need to increase 5x on an average Austin property. Hell, for most properties density doesn't even need to 2x. But the current density close to the rail is pathetic - we should allow 30 story towers over the whole 1/2mi corridor and let developers build it if they can afford it and can get it sold.

[Echostatic]

Thank you, OfficialPBreton, for one of the most thorough and comprehensive posts I have seen on any forum. I agree completely.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by urbancore

How much do you estimate our proposed "fully built" rail system would cost when it's completed?

My estimate would be MINIMUM $20B.

what do you base that estimate on?

If the first 10 miles is less that 5B (which includes a 40% contingency, so with luck less). And that section includes the hardest parts, the river crossing, and the most expensive downtown adjacent land. How large of a system are you proposing we get for 20B?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by urbancore

How is rail better than AI cars?

AI cars (if they even work) don't scale.

How many AI cars will there be? How many will be able to ride them at peak times. What will those AI cars do in off peak times? Park downtown, or just continually circle the block adding to congestion? Will they just use existing roads (adding to congestion) or does this include adding exclusive lanes/roads for them (since rail gets its own track)?

[OcotilloTea]

I find it interesting that a person with the username Urbancore seems to have a poor understanding of urban infrastructure development and just general history of cities.

I think there is a ton that you are misunderstanding, but the main thing that I would try to get you to understand is that we cannot expect to arrive at a reality we want if we do not lay the groundwork required for that future. If we want a sustainable, efficient, safe, and just overall good Austin, then we can look at cities that match that description and learn from their history. In doing that it becomes clear that investments in rail infrastructure are critical to become a great city, and more importantly, it is an investment that ideally happens before large waves of growth to then channel that type of growth into more walkable, gently dense, and sustainable neighborhoods.

Cities are fluid things and we have to make active decisions in how they develop. People like Austin and will continue to move here, and we can choose to plan for this growth and create an economically efficient and vibrant city through planning for density, diversity in housing stock, and freedom of transportation choice. Or we can keep our restrictive big government laws that prevent people from choosing how they want to live and move in this city, and eventually cover the Earth in Asphalt.



[QUOTE=urbancore;10248335

Austin will never have the density of NYC or similarly dense cities for the following reasons...[/QUOTE]

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Novacek

AI cars (if they even work) don't scale.

How many AI cars will there be? How many will be able to ride them at peak times. What will those AI cars do in off peak times? Park downtown, or just continually circle the block adding to congestion? Will they just use existing roads (adding to congestion) or does this include adding exclusive lanes/roads for them (since rail gets its own track)?

Many people are overly optimistic when it comes to "AI cars". Are they a reality? Yes. Are they ready to take over our roads? No. They aren't that great yet. A ton more testing/training still needs to be done. Any kind of mass adoption is still a long way off.

[OfficialPBreton]

Originally Posted by OcotilloTea

[W]e cannot expect to arrive at a reality we want if we do not lay the groundwork required for that future. If we want a sustainable, efficient, safe, and just overall good Austin, then we can look at cities that match that description and learn from their history. In doing that it becomes clear that investments in rail infrastructure are critical to become a great city, and more importantly, it is an investment that ideally happens before large waves of growth to then channel that type of growth into more walkable, gently dense, and sustainable neighborhoods.

Cities are fluid things and we have to make active decisions in how they develop. People like Austin and will continue to move here, and we can choose to plan for this growth and create an economically efficient and vibrant city through planning for density, diversity in housing stock, and freedom of transportation choice. Or we can keep our restrictive big government laws that prevent people from choosing how they want to live and move in this city, and eventually cover the Earth in Asphalt.

I could not echo this sentiment more sincerely. Thank you for taking my rambling post and expressing the tone and message that I was trying to convey.