AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[nixcity]

^I hope you are wrong, but that, along with the pricetag could be enough to shoot it down. Maybe we will put it off long enough to where we will just have to tunnel for the whole network. That said, center running light rail would work fine for most of the proposed route. About a month ago I was driving on the drag and was stuck with 3 full buses between just 2 lights.....

[nixcity]

Novacek, you really don't think they know about commuting patterns???? We have plenty of data on that. The second map is from CACDC and is from 2013, the map posted by Community Impact was made by Civic Analytics, a firm paid to do this kind of work. At the meeting for the UTC some of their team presented WITH Mr. Morris.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Novacek, you really don't think they know about commuting patterns????

Who knows if they/he "know about them". They certainly didn't use them to design that map. They're very explicit that it only comes from population density, literally "connect the dots"

"The groups plotted the densest areas and connected the dots using major arterials."

Originally Posted by nixcity

The second map is from CACDC and is from 2013, the map posted by Community Impact was made by Civic Analytics, a firm paid to do this kind of work. At the meeting for the UTC some of their team presented WITH Mr. Morris.

No, it was made by CACDC. That's why it says "Courtesy Central Austin Community Development Corporation" (the one in the header of the article)

That's why the second map in the article (not the one referenced by lzppjb) has a big CACDC logo on it.

[nixcity]

^ugh really, CACDC simply put that together using proposals from 3 different organizations including CAPMETRO and Lonestar Rail, do you think Mr. Morris also designed the green line and yellow line on that map???? It says also at the top who prepared the light rail (as seen in blue) line, and he works for Civic Analytics, as I've said 3 times now. Personally, I would stop at the North Austin Transit Center and Pleasant Valley and Riverside using a new bridge to cross the river but I also can respect trying to save money on that in order to get more miles.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

^ugh really, CACDC simply put that together using proposals from 3 different organizations including CAPMETRO and Lonestar Rail, do you think Mr. Morris also designed the green line and yellow line on that map????

No, but he's the one who incorrectly extended the green/red line to Guadalupe/South 1st.
And the one who added intermediate stops to the CA blue line.
And the purple lines.
And he's the one who thinks that South Austin (despite being a minority of the population) needs the majority of light rail infrastructure.

The overall map, as I stated, is not a planning map. It's a wish list from Mr. Morris.

It's not just 3 other proposals overlaid, he did transformative work on them.

There may be ideas in that worth discussing, as well as several drawbacks worth discussing. But it in no way is an official planning map or (yet) any sort of professional work.


It has no analysis of commuting patterns.
No analysis of right of way constraints.
Contrary to the statement in the article, it isn't just existing arterials. There's cutting through the country club creek greenbelt. No analysis of the environmental constraints of doing so.

Originally Posted by nixcity

Personally, I would stop at the North Austin Transit Center and Pleasant Valley and Riverside using a new bridge to cross the river but I also can respect trying to save money on that in order to get more miles.

I agree that a new bridge is probably required, which is a shortcoming of this proposal. I believe the South 1st bridge option was rejected as infeasible years ago. It would require either lane reductions or there were weight capacity concerns.

[nixcity]

No, but he's the one who incorrectly extended the green/red line to Guadalupe/South 1st.

Since the green line is proposed to meet up with the Red Line then this is in essence what will happen so that's no big deal. And the GL isn't feasible for 15-30 years anyway

And the one who added intermediate stops to the CA blue line.

I see one stop at the transit center. The other stops are where it would meet up with the other lines, creating obvious stops.

[QUOTE]And the purple lines.[QUOTE]
The purple lines (at least the spur to the port) are being looked at by the city, that ROW will probably be purchased for just that purpose during 2016.

And he's the one who thinks that South Austin (despite being a minority of the population) needs the majority of light rail infrastructure.

Seeing as how (in the proposed future where CAPMETRO and Lonestar get their wishes)
all of the Red and Green lines, the majority of Lonestar (stops), and the majority of the blue line would all be on the north side it makes sense to add more to the south. Although, I imagine a line down Congress or Lamar would happen instead of the west part of the proposed purple line.

It's a wish list from Mr. Morris.

Actually, this is the wish list of A LOT of Austinites, CAPMETRO and the Lonestar folks included. The majority of the blue line has been envisioned for around 2 decades. I'm glad he and his cohorts are able to have the attention of the city.

It has no analysis of commuting patterns.
No analysis of right of way constraints.

CAPMETRO has plenty of info on commuting patterns and kicks off the buildup to rail with its corridor study next month. Analysis of ROW are also logical next steps.

There's cutting through the country club creek greenbelt. No analysis of the environmental constraints of doing so.

The map I'm looking at has that greenbelt stopping well short of Riverside, but even if it did doesn't Project Connect have that info since they proposed going there last year?

The main item of importance from Community Impact is the blue line. That is where our next proposal for LR will be, maybe not in this exact route but they are on the right path, now we just need more people like you to help light a fire under our CC's ass to get this moving in the right direction.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Since the green line is proposed to meet up with the Red Line then this is in essence what will happen so that's no big deal. And the GL isn't feasible for 15-30 years anyway

Yes the green line meets the red line. At the convention center. Not 7 blocks west of there. It's a "big deal" because 1) it makes transfers incredibly inconvenient 2) Again, it shows the amateurism of this "plan".

Originally Posted by nixcity

Seeing as how (in the proposed future where CAPMETRO and Lonestar get their wishes)
all of the Red and Green lines, the majority of Lonestar (stops), and the majority of the blue line would all be on the north side it makes sense to add more to the south.

The Red Line, Green Line, and Lone Star mostly serve suburban commuters. The purpose of the "urban rail" is mostly to serve a different user base. Those in the central city/"Central Corridor".

Three quarters of which is north of the river. As well as most of the population. It makes no sense to then put 2/3 of the infrastructure serving that south of the river.

Originally Posted by nixcity

The majority of the blue line has been envisioned for around 2 decades.

Actually, only 1/3 of this proposal (5 miles worth) was in the 2000 plan.

Originally Posted by nixcity

CAPMETRO has plenty of info on commuting patterns and kicks off the buildup to rail with its corridor study next month. Analysis of ROW are also logical next steps.

Yes, they have that info. So you agree that this proposal doesn't include any of that, which makes a specific route pretty meaningless?

Originally Posted by nixcity

The map I'm looking at has that greenbelt stopping well short of Riverside, but even if it did doesn't Project Connect have that info since they proposed going there last year?

Huh.
The 2014 proposal continued on Riverside until Grove.

This proposal goes south on Pleasant Valley until William Cannon.

One problem: Pleasant Valley doesn't go south all the way to William Cannon. It's discontinuous, and is interrupted in part by the Country Club Creek greenbelt.

Originally Posted by nixcity

The main item of importance from Community Impact is the blue line. That is where our next proposal for LR will be, maybe not in this exact route but they are on the right path,

Who is "they"? CapMetro?

CapMetro is in no way blindly focusing on a 20 year plan, path, and data. Which is the right way to design things.

"Look at future high-capacity transit investments in the Central Corridor: Arguello said during the rail bond planning only one of 10 possible rail corridors was chosen. He said the process will revisit all 10 of those corridors."

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Who knows if they/he "know about them". They certainly didn't use them to design that map. They're very explicit that it only comes from population density, literally "connect the dots"

Another point on that, which shows how this map is bad:

They chose Pleasant Valley/William Cannon as an endpoint based on 2010 population density.

This happens to be where the city is buying out people. Why would you put light rail at a spot where, not only is the population not growing, but actually actively decreasing?

[nixcity]

This happens to be where the city is buying out people. Why would you put light rail at a spot where, not only is the population not growing, but actually actively decreasing?

Actually, there is way more housing going in that area than leaving.....although I still think it would be best to stop at PV and Riverside or possibly there where there would be a spur to the port.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Actually, there is way more housing going in that area than leaving.....

Where?

Draw a half mile radius circle around that intersection.

Half the area is the park and golf course. Then there's all the area being bought out by the corps of engineers.

You're down to only the area west of pleasant valley. Most of which is already built up as single family housing. Or is actually the Williamson Creek greenbelt.

It's probably the single worst location to put a light rail station in the _entire_ city.

[nixcity]

Yes the green line meets the red line. At the convention center. Not 7 blocks west of there. It's a "big deal" because 1) it makes transfers incredibly inconvenient 2) Again, it shows the amateurism of this "plan".

You know CAMPETRO's plan has always been to extend the line down to Seaholm!!

The Red Line, Green Line, and Lone Star mostly serve suburban commuters. The purpose of the "urban rail" is mostly to serve a different user base. Those in the central city/"Central Corridor".

Three quarters of which is north of the river. As well as most of the population. It makes no sense to then put 2/3 of the infrastructure serving that south of the river.

LSTAR-4 stations north, 3 stations south
Red Line- 9 stations north
Green Line- 3-5 stations north (can't find a good map for it)
Blue Line- 6-7 stations north, 4-5 stations south
Purple Lines- 5-7 stations south
Total at max-25 stops north and 15 stops south, sounds reasonable to me, I'm not sure where you get 2/3 north, even the total number of miles would still be more north, even though I'm pretty sure some of those south miles will eventually be cut.

One problem: Pleasant Valley doesn't go south all the way to William Cannon. It's discontinuous, and is interrupted in part by the Country Club Creek greenbelt.

I see where you are talking about now, that weird stretch where PV dead ends. Yeah, IDK if they just plan on going around the belt, that would be my guess. I know there is solid employment on the other side of that belt and that they want that in order to get to the spur for the airport but I think if they just stop at PV and Riverside they can just continue that line to the port as originally planned (10-30 years down the line of course).

"Look at future high-capacity transit investments in the Central Corridor: Arguello said during the rail bond planning only one of 10 possible rail corridors was chosen. He said the process will revisit all 10 of those corridors."

Right, and it is our job as citizens to hold their feet to the fire and make sure they don't come out with the same debacle like last time. Fortunately, we already have some people doing that for us and they are already being heard by the city. If you have another plan we'd love to see it and if you have had some time at the table with the city we'd love to hear about it. Otherwise, take these ideas about the shortcomings to the people involved and help get us moving in the right direction.

[nixcity]

Where?

Draw a half mile radius circle around that intersection.

I actually work over there a few times each week, there are really only just a handful of homes down there left that are being bought out and many more still being built in that Salt springs area and a whole new neighborhood just east of there. There is a whole new apartment complex going in just west of there as well. I imagine they are thinking of making that stop a park and ride which could capture all those people down WC and probably even Stassney. If I was coming from Buda or Kyle I might drive over there to get dt just to avoid the rest of 35.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

You know CAMPETRO's plan has always been to extend the line down to Seaholm!!

No, it isn't!!!

That's been rejected, as it's unfeasible to try and run the FRA-controlled DMUs entirely through downtown.

It came up during the courthouse election. If Capmetro wanted to extend it to seaholm, they would have bought that block when it was originally available before the county bought it.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Traffic isn't bad in Austin except during rush hour. Making students' (non-rush hour) trips downtown to drink _slightly_ easier isn't going to sell a system.

If that is the goal, to make it easier for West Campus students to reach 5th & 6th Street lounges, you could save a lot of money just building a streetcar line or press bus line just between these two points. No need to go further north than West Campus, no need to go further south than 6th Street.

If the goal is to eliminate traffic congestion during rush hours, then you do need to study commuting routes and build some alternative where the congestion occurs. Is the Lamar/Guadalupe corridor the only one that gets congested during rush hours?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

I actually work over there a few times each week, there are really only just a handful of homes down there left that are being bought out and many more still being built in that Salt springs area and a whole new neighborhood just east of there. There is a whole new apartment complex going in just west of there as well. I imagine they are thinking of making that stop a park and ride which could capture all those people down WC and probably even Stassney. If I was coming from Buda or Kyle I might drive over there to get dt just to avoid the rest of 35.

You could throw darts at a map and hit a spot in Austin with low-density single family housing.
That doesn't make it good areas for light rail stations.

High density multi-use areas, with residential and commercial. That's where it needs to go.
Not somewhere where 50% of the walking catchment area is permanently un-developable floodplain.

[nixcity]

Just connecting density clusters is stupid. It's the wrong way to go about planning.

High density multi-use areas, with residential and commercial. That's where it needs to go.

So which one is it????? But as I've said I don't particularly like that stretch of their idea anyway.

[nixcity]

Is the Lamar/Guadalupe corridor the only one that gets congested during rush hours?

No, all of our north south roadways are clogged. However, this is the one with the most bus traffic. As I said earlier I was driving on the drag and had 3 full buses stuck in traffic with me between 2 lights, and those lights were just 200 feet apart!!!!

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

If that is the goal, to make it easier for West Campus students to reach 5th & 6th Street lounges, you could save a lot of money just building a streetcar line or press bus line just between these two points. No need to go further north than West Campus, no need to go further south than 6th Street.

If the goal is to eliminate traffic congestion during rush hours, then you do need to study commuting routes and build some alternative where the congestion occurs. Is the Lamar/Guadalupe corridor the only one that gets congested during rush hours?

To expand my thoughts on this a bit. Because I know you all aren't tired of hearing from me

The original Mobility ATX post was a misstatement.

The point (and design consideration) of a transit system is not "Day 1 ridership"

It's not (necessarily) ridership at all.

The point of developing a mass transit system is to "Improve the transportation system".

Granted, that's a very, very nebulous statement. But I very much want to convey that ridership, especially day 1 ridership, is a vastly oversimplified metric (to the point of being useless).

It's not a game of Donkey Kong where we're going for a ridership high score. Hell, if ridership was the only consideration, just take that Billion dollars and pay bums to ride back and forth all day. That'll generate thousands of additional trips on the existing buses, no rail required.


So we want to improve the overall system. Possible metrics:
A) New/additional ridership. If all you do is convert existing bus riders to train riders, that's probably not an improvement. UNLESS, those riders then see
B) Improved service (much shorter trips, etc.). Draw a distinction between peak times and non-peak times. Existing bus riders in non-peak times probably won't see much improvments.
C) Decreased road congestion. This may or may not be a design requirement selected. If so, it argues against taking existing lanes/RoW. It may or may not be possible, depending on what you think about induced demand.
E) Environmental improvements. Definitely could be big for Austin, since we're so close to non-attainment.
F) Converting 2 car household to 1/0 car households.
G) Economic development.
H) Increased density.
I) Increased peak capacity for special events (like SxSW). The red line shows this a lot.

Day 1 is really only going to show B and possibly (some) A. No one is going to sell their car day 1, no new building is going to immediately be up day 1, etc.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

So which one is it?????

1) Residental and employment. Not just residential, like this map is.
2) Mixed use, not just a cluster of only residential connected to a cluster of only employment.
3) Long-term. Don't design the system based on that data from the 2000 light rail plan.

We're developing a (hopefully) multi-billion dollar system that, once it's in place, will be set for 40-60-100 years. Where the people/jobs/ridership will be 20-30 years from now are _much_ more important than where they were 5-15 years ago.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

1) Residental and employment. Not just residential, like this map is.
2) Mixed use, not just a cluster of only residential connected to a cluster of only employment.
3) Long-term. Don't design the system based on that data from the 2000 light rail plan.

We're developing a (hopefully) multi-billion dollar system that, once it's in place, will be set for 40-60-100 years. Where the people/jobs/ridership will be 20-30 years from now are _much_ more important than where they were 5-15 years ago.

4) If possible, examine in depth the nature of the population density you're seeing.

If you _just_ look at population density, you'll end up with a system that just connects all the prisons and nursing homes. (extreme, unrealistic example).

Looking in depth at the demographics would be useful. If you happen to be trying to improve rush hour congestion, population density consisting of kids and stay-at-home parents is less useful.