AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[M1EK]

Rapid Bus is a joke - it provides no real improvement for passengers on this corridor (the densest in the city - far more dense than anything along the Red Line), and in the process effectively prevents rail from being discussed on Guadalupe for, essentially, ever. The core part is where the two rapid bus lines come together; this is the densest concentration of jobs and other activity centers in the region - and instead of serving it with rail, we're serving low-density garbage with rail and just running longer buses here.

The fact that Rapid Bus runs in lower density sections further north and further south is irrelevant to the problem here - it's going to be squatting on top of the 2000 LRT route in the core dense part of town, and going to be impossible to move (politically speaking).

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

And back to the radio story: this is the difference between a pseudonym (M1EK) and anonymity. That's me on the radio there, with my real name; bear that in mind the next time one of the other guys tries to assert more credibility.

Whenever I am interviewed by the media, I use my real name. On this forum I use a pseudonym because it allows me to express my personal opinion, and occasionally share information that I wouldn't be able to otherwise. The only difference is that you can't connect my real name with my pseudonym. You've made some valiant efforts to guess, but you have been way off base. I know it is driving you crazy, but you will probably never figure it out; and even if you do, I will never confirm.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Rapid Bus is a joke - it provides no real improvement for passengers on this corridor (the densest in the city - far more dense than anything along the Red Line), and in the process effectively prevents rail from being discussed on Guadalupe for, essentially, ever. The core part is where the two rapid bus lines come together; this is the densest concentration of jobs and other activity centers in the region - and instead of serving it with rail, we're serving low-density garbage with rail and just running longer buses here.

The fact that Rapid Bus runs in lower density sections further north and further south is irrelevant to the problem here - it's going to be squatting on top of the 2000 LRT route in the core dense part of town, and going to be impossible to move (politically speaking).

You are correct that Rapid Bus is not true BRT. It is a simplified version that has been enormously successful in Los Angeles. Given the circumstances of Cap Metro's financial condition and the City's Urban Rail program, it is the right thing to do.

Have a look at the approved list of New Starts and Small Starts just released by the FTA. The only true BRT (by your definition) on the list is the Hartford Busway. At $60 Million / mile, the cost is comparable to light rail. The only project less expensive than Austin's is the Roaring Fork project. This is the transit authority around Aspen, and will run on existing HOV lanes on the only highway running through the valley. It is hardly comparable to our urban context. The next closest, at four times the cost / mile is New York, which is a simplified version of BRT. All of the others on the Small Starts list are 12 to 16 times the cost / mile.



The beauty of Rapid Bus is that it is a small investment, and easily accommodates future upgrades of the corridors to urban rail. That is the whole point of my priorities chart (I am updating the costs of Rapid Bus based on this new information). If we were to build true BRT, it would require permanent alterations to the ROW, and the cost would mean that we could only one corridor, one direction from Downtown, and probably not as far out. As it is, Cap Metro can't raise their 20% match for two or three years until the sales tax recovers.

The majority of the cost of Rapid Bus is the bus purchase. Buses are easily relocated to different corridors as urban rail replaces it in each corridor. Because buses run in the right lane, they are easily accommodated during construction of center median trackways for urban rail. If you build center median busways for true BRT, you have to shut down the BRT service while you add tracks to the busway. The signal priority equipment becomes part of the City's signal infrastructure and can be reused by urban rail. The shelters, benches and signs are easily unbolted from their foundations and relocated to the new corridor. That is how you build a comprehensive transit system incrementally, which is our only option at this point.

You are right that Rapid Bus largely replicates the 101 service, but it is a substantial upgrade from that service. The 20% time improvement comes from the LA experience. MetroRapid might not be a 20% improvement over the 101, but it is an upgrade at very little cost, and the investment is easily relocated as the urban rail system gradually replaces it in key corridors.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is serious discussion of creating bus only lanes on Guadalupe and Lavaca Downtown. The Drag will always be the problem segment, and as I have said before, I don't think dedicated lanes or trackway is very realistic. The only long term solution is a tunnel for that section, but that will be many years in the future.

[SecretAgentMan]

City Financial Office offers early look at possible funding for urban rail
InFactDaily
February 2, 2010

The city’s financial office says Austin currently has about $200 million to spend on a proposed downtown rail project before it would have to begin raising taxes to pay for such a system. That would get the process started, but voters would have to approve the rest of the funding, which could be a considerably larger sum.
Deputy Chief Financial Officer Greg Canally sent a memo Monday to the Mayor and City Council concerning a preliminary estimate of the city’s general obligation bonding capacity as it relates to a potential urban rail funding plan.
According to the memo, the city has approximately $200 million in available bonding capacity above its existing commitments, meaning the city can access that money without raising its debt service tax rate. Voters must approve general obligation public improvement bonds; the public pays for those bonds through property taxes.
Last December, City Council outlined a series of questions concerning urban rail in advance of a potential mobility bond election this November. It requested answers to some questions by the spring before determining whether or not to go ahead with the bond election. Mayor Lee Leffingwell told In Fact Daily that a comprehensive urban rail system would require several bond elections along with federal grant money.
“Right now the strategy we’re trying to deal with is laying out what a full build-out would look like,” he said, “but obviously the entire system would have to be funded over a generation, probably, with several bond elections. And hopefully, after we get the initial segment approved and built, (with) a lot of help from the federal government.
“There's a lot of unanswered questions right now: We don't know who is going to operate it, we don't know where the rest of the money is going to come from, but we have to have answers to those questions within the next two or three months if we’re going to get a November 2010 bond election.”
Leffingwell stressed that the Financial Office’s numbers are preliminary and that any funds related to the creation of an urban rail system would have to be looked at in relation to the issue of citywide transportation as a whole.
“We haven’t settled on any numbers yet,” Leffingwell said, “but I think what we’re talking about is a bond package that would result in a small increase and then maybe another couple hundred million. Then we could raise enough money to fund some of these strategic gaps, as we’re calling them, in our roadway system -- some money for pedestrian and bike facilities and some for rail -- and we don't know what that’s going to be just yet. But it would have to be something in the confines of that.”
Canally also pointed out that each one cent per $100 property valuation above the current debt service tax rate would generate about $100 million in additional bonding capacity.
“(W)e feel it is appropriate to share these (numbers) at this point,” Canally wrote, “since bonding capacity would be an integral piece of the overall analysis.” He is expecting to complete an analysis of the funding issue by the spring, followed by a meeting on the Strategic Mobility Plan in June.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

You are right that Rapid Bus largely replicates the 101 service, but it is a substantial upgrade from that service. The 20% time improvement comes from the LA experience. MetroRapid might not be a 20% improvement over the 101, but it is an upgrade at very little cost, and the investment is easily relocated as the urban rail system gradually replaces it in key corridors.

I totally agree. You only need to go as far as Houston to see what a bunch of buses lined up in the suburbs and a dedicated HOV lane can do for ridership. I'm not saying the Houston model is rapid bus, but I would imagine it is cost effective and relatively cheap so it can't be ignored. And as I've said in the past, I really don't see why anyone would take the 101 as it sits - you're just sitting in traffic with everyone else anyway.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Whenever I am interviewed by the media, I use my real name. On this forum I use a pseudonym because it allows me to express my personal opinion, and occasionally share information that I wouldn't be able to otherwise. The only difference is that you can't connect my real name with my pseudonym. You've made some valiant efforts to guess, but you have been way off base. I know it is driving you crazy, but you will probably never figure it out; and even if you do, I will never confirm.

You're my new favorite on this Austin forum.

I can probably hazard a guess as to why you don't publicize your name when posting your personal opinion, but...

[Myomi]

Originally Posted by JAM

I totally agree. You only need to go as far as Houston to see what a bunch of buses lined up in the suburbs and a dedicated HOV lane can do for ridership. I'm not saying the Houston model is rapid bus, but I would imagine it is cost effective and relatively cheap so it can't be ignored. And as I've said in the past, I really don't see why anyone would take the 101 as it sits - you're just sitting in traffic with everyone else anyway.

Ok, I am a little confused here and would love for someone to clarify some things for me. What exactly is the CapMetro MetroRapid plan? I didn't know there were going to be dedicated HOV lanes to this plan. I'm guessing they aren't building new lanes, are they? Are they remaking the streets to designate the lanes that the buses are traveling in? How exactly are they separating the BRT from other forms of traffic? Or is it going to be on existing roads with just a traffic light changing device? How exactly does this system work when traffic is backed up 3 or 4 lights back?

Also, SecretAgentMan, which BRT line are you talking about in LA? Is it the Orange Line? Sorry for all the questions but I am trying to get all the facts straight before forming a opinion on this system. Thanks.

[SecretAgentMan]

There are no HOV lanes involved. There are two corridors: Burnet to South Congress via Guadalupe and Lamar to South Congress via Guadalupe. There may be bus only lanes on Guadalupe and Lavaca through Downtown. The Drag is the achilles heal of the system, as it is for all traffic in Austin, particularly in the PM peak. It would be nice if there were bus only lanes on the Drag, but I really don't think that is likely to happen. The rest of the corridor segments flow relatively well, and the signal priority systems will help when the bus is slightly out of sync with the signal progression.

The first LA Metro Rapid lines were on Wilshire and Ventura, but there are now something like 26 corridors with Metro Rapid service.

http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/cap...trorapid.shtml

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Myomi

Ok, I am a little confused here and would love for someone to clarify some things for me. What exactly is the CapMetro MetroRapid plan? I didn't know there were going to be dedicated HOV lanes to this plan. I'm guessing they aren't building new lanes, are they? Are they remaking the streets to designate the lanes that the buses are traveling in? How exactly are they separating the BRT from other forms of traffic? Or is it going to be on existing roads with just a traffic light changing device? How exactly does th

Sorry for the confusion, the point I was trying to make is that what was done in Houston with their bus system and utilizing dedicated HOV lanes was probably far less expensive than running light rail on those same routes, and even though it is a bus, ridership is high because they are actually time savers - no sitting in traffic on the freeway.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Whenever I am interviewed by the media, I use my real name. On this forum I use a pseudonym because it allows me to express my personal opinion, and occasionally share information that I wouldn't be able to otherwise. The only difference is that you can't connect my real name with my pseudonym. You've made some valiant efforts to guess, but you have been way off base. I know it is driving you crazy, but you will probably never figure it out; and even if you do, I will never confirm.

And of course the danger in this is that there are a lot of insiders who have direct (working for Capital Metro or contracting there) or indirect financial interests at stake - who might, let's say, have a financial interest in making it look like CM could continue down their path of further investment in commuter rail without endangering the city's urban rail project because their bread is buttered at CM, not at the city. Even though they are fundamentally incompatible - to the point where one of Brewster McCracken's proposals during the urban rail run-up was to wrest control of Capital Metro's capital budget from them.

(Note that planning for the urban rail project is being done partially under the auspices of the 1/4 cent program - money that CM has already announced they will now not be paying the CoA as promised. I think the city's urban rail plan will be impossible to achieve without some capital participation from Capital Metro).

Again, anonymity is fine - but not when used to undermine those who have the courage to be non-anonymous, and certainly not when done with some kind of presumption of insider status.

[M1EK]

As for Rapid Bus, if you don't think the spin from SAM is misleading, think again.

There's an existing express bus on this corridor which has everything except for the signal-holding device; and the most congested part of the corridor (responsible for almost all of the delay) will not see any benefit from the signal-holding device.

CM, when quoting time savings for Rapid Bus, only says it'll be 20% faster than the #1. They never tell you how much faster it'll be than the #101. Know why? Because it won't be much faster than the #101; the #101 is already almost 20% faster than the #1.

I did a quick scan of the current schedules for the #1 and the #101. The morning free-flow times are about 11% different; the morning rush is about 21% different (68 minutes versus 54 minutes at 7:30ish from Tech Ridge to Congress / Cesar Chavez). Afternoon free-flow time was 16% different (57 versus 68); afternoon rush was actually closer at 13% (59 versus 68).

Schedules aren't perfect here - but they're all we have, and they show Rapid Bus won't deliver much if anything on this commute.

[M1EK]

And LA is not happy with their Rapid service, either, if you cut through the hype from their transit agency. I linked to a story back in 2006 that has unfortunately not been archived; also was mentioned here on MetroRider LA with the following money quotes:

Metro’s Rapid bus network has been the brigadier general in the public relations offensive for bus rapid transit. The narrative goes: bus rapid transit builds a rail transit system without even having to lay down track, and transit users cannot tell the difference.

Metro succeeded admirably. It has built 6-lane guideways for buses, and the spare capacity can accommodate other vehicles! It has efficiently allocated the use of proof-of-fare machines by placing them on board the vehicles! The vehicles, indistinguishable from rail cars apart from the red livery, pimp-strut up to traffic lights and demand, “Where’s my green, bee-yotch?”.

Everybody buys it, except for the riders. They recognize Rapid as not only a bus, but a service that looks, feels and smells similar to limited-stop services.

...

This actually goes for most BRT projects funded by the Federal Transit Administration. Very few are built to the capital-intensive projects such as the Orange Line. BRT itself is a Mad Libs approach to public transit investment, where most transit agencies can cobble together a funding proposal and pass off any grant funding as BRT.

And in L.A.’s case, Metro pulled off a great swindle. It got the feds to be on the hook for service that Metro’s planning and operations would have created anyway if left to their own devices. Los Angeles has had limited-stop service for decades. The limited-stop buses were only on a dozen lines, but really mushroomed after 1994. In the mid 1990s, Metro began to dismantle its freeway express buses since they were running for years unproductively. These buses were reallocated to local and more limited-stop bus services.
Yet here’s a little known fact. Metro does not run limited-stop buses as a faster complement to local buses. The faster service by the limited buses is a byproduct, not an intended goal. Metro only considers limited-stop service on lines that have overcrowding on locals and high volumes of boardings and alightings at intersections where transfers can be made. The logic goes that the riders would divide themselves up and take locals if they were completing a trip on the line and limiteds if they are transferring to or from another bus.
The faster service by the limiteds is because of the fewer stops.
Metro took the public perception of limited buses=faster service and made it the centerpiece of the Rapid campaign. Metro targets a 25 percent speed advantage over local service. It’s a very impressive number, but this translates into a very small time savings for the average 4-6 mile trip. A 12-minute trip on a local bus would be 9 minutes on a Rapid.

And Rapid’s time advantage has little help from the magic traffic light mischief mechanisms. This is supposedly the “flux capacitor” of the entire Rapid bus operation, yet in reality it’s a McGuffin. The buses control signals only within the city of Los Angeles, and buses only receive priority if the added 10 seconds does not cause traffic to back up on cross streets. Oh, and there’s another hurdle that must be cleared: the buses must stay on schedule. The signal metes priority to one bus in a given period. If, for whatever reason, buses bunch or the leading bus is late while the follower is five minutes behind it, only one of those buses gets OK from the signal computer. In most cases, getting a green light is a crap shoot.

Rapid buses are still faster, though, but for the same reason limited-stop buses are faster: fewer stops. That’s all.

Lest you think this is all in the past; on the front page currently of the blog is this pithy quote:

The Year in Transit gets you to the destination directly, and unlike Metro Rapid, the Year in Transit catches green lights all the way.

[Myomi]

Yea, thats what I was thinking too. It was the reason I asked which LA lines you were talking about SAM. And I would also like to ask you SAM, what is the difference between these new buses and the ones that currently run the 101. We have already established it isn't on its own ROW. So is the only difference the signal transponders and the buses are bigger? Couldn't current buses be retrofitted with this? If these devices are so effective, and don't have any adverse effects to normal traffic flow at lights (which is being claimed), then couldn't the entire fleet be retrofitted with these devices, or at least the most traveled lines? Wouldn't that improve times up to 20% on all lines around the city, encouraging usage on all bus routes?

I feel like what is being done here is telling the Feds that we are coming up with a whole new line (which we are not, there are express buses on these routes) so that they buy us new buses (instead of retrofitting old buses with these transponders). If that's what's happening, can't the freedom you get from your anonymity be used to tell us that? I am all for asking for federal dollars to improve our transit infrastructure. I just don't want to be told that this is something it is not. So if there is any difference between this and other buses (besides the minute it will save every now and then by holding up a light), please tell me.

[M1EK]

Well, when I described Rapid Bus at the Transport Politic, the very first commenter responding pretty much came to the conclusion that Capital Metro had fooled the Feds into buying us new rolling stock - so you're not alone.

[SecretAgentMan]

OK Where do I start? I’m going to try and address a number of issues as succinctly and completely as possible, while trying to keep it brief.

Rapid Bus is a limited stop service like the existing 101 and 103, BRT and LRT. Express Bus is not the same thing. Express Bus is more like commuter rail in that its goal is to connect remote locations as quick as possible. To this end, there are usually few stops in the middle of the route, and the vehicle takes the fastest possible route, usually a highway or rail corridor.

Limited stop services serve the entire length of a corridor with stops spaced more or less equally (somewhat closer than average in denser areas & somewhat further apart in less dense areas). Stops are spaced further apart than local services like regular bus or streetcar, focusing on speed over accessibility.

M1EK is absolutely correct that it is the limited stop service pattern that makes up probably 90% of the speed advantage. This is true whether you are talking about bus or rail.

Think of it this way: travel time lost to congestion on the Drag is probably not more than a few minutes at its very worse. People’s perception of the time lost is generally far greater than reality. When you take those few minutes in the context of a 20 mile trip, it has very little impact on the average speed of the trip.
Consider that each bus stop may take an average of a minute for passengers to board and unboard. If a bus stops every three blocks, the stops make up the majority of the time over a 20 mile trip. If the frequent stops cause the bus to get out of sync with the signal progression set up to serve cars driving a consistent speed, the bus pays a further penalty by having to stop at more lights. Reducing the number of stops and making the stops as fast as possible is the key to improving speed. Tools such as signal priority and even dedicated lanes may improve speed somewhat, but their chief role is to improve schedule reliability. Schedule reliability is critical when a transit network relies on timed transfers to make connections. If a local feeder bus has limited frequency, and a connection is missed, the passenger has to wait quite a while for the next bus.

So yes, Rapid Bus is largely a rebranding of the existing limited stop services, but it also is an upgrade to that service. Rapid Bus will have a more frequent schedule, so that alone will require additional buses. If Cap Metro had to continue using existing buses, they would have to reduce service somewhere else to offer more frequent service on the 101 and 103.

There are other features of Rapid Bus that are borrowed from light rail beyond limited stop service. Cap Metro probably will not begin procurement of the buses until after the budget is passed by Congress, so the exact buses are not known, but they have indicated their criteria in the Rapid Bus application to the FTA. The buses they wish to procure are low floor, with multiple doors to speed loading and unloading, similar to light rail. The aforementioned signal priority system will increase schedule reliability, and may increase speed somewhat. The buses will be equipped with GPS, and the stops will be equipped with real-time schedule information signs that will indicate if the bus is on schedule, and when the next bus will arrive. They will probably consider at least some of the buses to be 60 foot articulated buses that will have greater passenger capacity than standard 40 foot buses. Some manufacturers also make alternative fuel and/or hybrid buses intended for BRT use.

Any transit system that is to maintain existing service, let alone improve service, has to buy new buses on a fairly regular schedule. Buses do wear out, after all. It is fairly common for the FTA to fund the majority of bus purchases throughout the transit industry. Cap Metro is also receiving Stimulus funds to purchase other new buses.

[Scottolini]

Transit center approved for downtown Round Rock
By Rob Heidrick Friday, 29 January 2010

A new transit and parking facility approved Jan. 28 will connect downtown Round Rock to Austin’s Capital Metro bus network in north Austin.

...

http://impactnews.com/round-rock-pfl...own-round-rock

[SecretAgentMan]

To be clear, I thought I would try to compare Rapid Bus and Light Rail.

Because all transit operating on city streets is governed by speed limits, there is little inherent difference between bus and rail in terms of speed. Because the limited stop pattern accounts for probably 90% of the time savings, Rapid Bus can be as fast, or nearly as fast as Light Rail. Speed is not everything, though. It is tempting to think of Rapid Bus, or especially full featured BRT to be nearly as good as Light Rail, but for a much less money. This is very misleading though, and was a major failing of the direction the FTA was going under the Bush administration.

Capacity – the chief advantage of rail is capacity. This is more important in higher ridership corridors than lower ridership corridors, but also affects operating efficiency. Rail vehicles (including streetcars) have higher capacity than most buses. Most rail vehicles (including some streetcars) can be coupled into consists of multiple units, allowing capacity to grow over time, without needing to build more rails.

Operating Efficiency – because of higher capacity, fewer operators are needed per passenger, reducing operating costs.

Ridership – studies show clear preference for rail over buses. For whatever reason, some people who will not ride buses will ride rail, resulting is higher ridership in the same corridor. This requires higher capacity and increases operating efficiency.

Land Use Affects – rail projects (including streetcars) are shown to increase property values and induce investment in higher density, mixed use developments. Full featured BRT, with major investment in dedicated busways have also been shown to have an impact on development, but the cost competitiveness with LRT is marginal. TOD development further reinforces ridership.

Environment – electric rail can be more energy efficient, less polluting, and is generally quieter than diesel buses. That makes them more compatible with higher density development.
Ride quality – rail provides a more pleasant ride than buses which tend to lurch and bump around.

Buses have one advantage over rail besides cost – Flexibility. Almost all cities have far more roads than rail lines, and the need for an electric power source further limits light rail to fewer streets. This allows buses to go places rail can’t. This quality has been used very successfully to build BRT busways that allow buses to be both fast and accessible. In low density suburban environments, buses can circulate around like local feeder buses, then enter the busway and travel at high speed to the primary destination.

If money were no object, I would be for light rail any day. But consider this: the cost of the two Rapid Bus lines would buy about 1 mile of Urban Rail.
Given the financial situation Cap Metro is in, I believe Rapid Bus is a good transitional technology for our main corridors. I do not believe they will impede urban rail from being developed in those corridors incrementally. The Rapid Bus investment is easily relocated to the next corridor to be developed. In the meantime, we will benefit from improved service that will support the land use changes we are already seeing in those corridors, which in turn are supporting development of higher quality transit.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

To be clear, I thought I would try to compare Rapid Bus and Light Rail.

Because all transit operating on city streets is governed by speed limits, there is little inherent difference between bus and rail in terms of speed.

Misleading. Everybody knows when I talk about rail on Guadalupe, I mean "in its own lane".

And if you think the congestion on Guadalupe only adds a couple minutes, you're crazy; it added at least 15 minutes the last time I foolishly tried going that way on a bus in the afternoon (north from downtown). Not 15 minutes to get through the part from MLK to 27th; 15 EXTRA minutes over what it would be with no traffic (i.e. the LRT case).

Finally, there will be no political will to move the buses (and more importantly the stop infrastructure, which can't really be 'moved') to a new corridor - it's foolish to think otherwise based on history here and in other cities. Not for decades more, at least.

Also, this:

So yes, Rapid Bus is largely a rebranding of the existing limited stop services, but it also is an upgrade to that service. Rapid Bus will have a more frequent schedule, so that alone will require additional buses. If Cap Metro had to continue using existing buses, they would have to reduce service somewhere else to offer more frequent service on the 101 and 103.

is misleading, too. It's not just that more #101 buses would be required; it's also quite obvious that the #1 will not continue to run at the same frequency it does now once (if) Rapid Bus is delivered, so no new rolling stock would necessarily be required here for the modest service improvements being proposed. Also, the comments about it being reasonable for the Feds to buy us new buses - misleading yet again. The "small starts" program is NOT supposed to be for established transit agencies to buy new vehicles for their fleet.

Sounds like JMVC to me, once again. Shilling for Capital Metro's RB/CR plans so he keeps employed, at the expense of Austin's urban rail plan.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

And of course the danger in this is that there are a lot of insiders who have direct (working for Capital Metro or contracting there) or indirect financial interests at stake - who might, let's say, have a financial interest in making it look like CM could continue down their path of further investment in commuter rail without endangering the city's urban rail project because their bread is buttered at CM, not at the city. Even though they are fundamentally incompatible - to the point where one of Brewster McCracken's proposals during the urban rail run-up was to wrest control of Capital Metro's capital budget from them.

(Note that planning for the urban rail project is being done partially under the auspices of the 1/4 cent program - money that CM has already announced they will now not be paying the CoA as promised. I think the city's urban rail plan will be impossible to achieve without some capital participation from Capital Metro).

Again, anonymity is fine - but not when used to undermine those who have the courage to be non-anonymous, and certainly not when done with some kind of presumption of insider status.

I hope you're not talking about me. You don't know where I work (or even if I do). If you're going to impugn someone's integrity (even if they wish to remain anonymous) you should just come out and make direct accusations rather than hinting at it.

Cap Metro is likely going to operate urban rail. The City (Spillar and Leffingwell at least) have made it clear they do not intend to. The other options are Lone Star Rail, TxDOT or CTRMA, all pretty unlikely, I think. The only other option is to set up a separate non-profit funded by the various interested entities. That non-profit would likely contract with Cap Metro, or at least directly with their rail contractor, for operations so that it is coordinated well with Cap Metro.

Cap Metro does not reserve 1/4 of their operating revenue for the capital budget. At this point, any budget surplus is going to rebuild their operating reserve. That is why it will take 2 or 3 years before Rapid Bus will be operating. If 1/4 of their revenue was devoted to capital projects, they would have to cut services by 1/4, rather than improving and expanding services to support a rapidly growing city.

If you really think that is a good idea, then I would go as far as to say you really aren't the transit advocate you claim to be.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Misleading. Everybody knows when I talk about rail on Guadalupe, I mean "in its own lane".

And if you think the congestion on Guadalupe only adds a couple minutes, you're crazy; it added at least 15 minutes the last time I foolishly tried going that way on a bus in the afternoon (north from downtown). Not 15 minutes to get through the part from MLK to 27th; 15 EXTRA minutes over what it would be with no traffic (i.e. the LRT case).


Finally, there will be no political will to move the buses (and more importantly the stop infrastructure, which can't really be 'moved') to a new corridor - it's foolish to think otherwise based on history here and in other cities. Not for decades more, at least.

Also, this:



is misleading, too. It's not just that more #101 buses would be required; it's also quite obvious that the #1 will not continue to run at the same frequency it does now once (if) Rapid Bus is delivered, so no new rolling stock would necessarily be required here for the modest service improvements being proposed. Also, the comments about it being reasonable for the Feds to buy us new buses - misleading yet again. The "small starts" program is NOT supposed to be for established transit agencies to buy new vehicles for their fleet.

Sounds like JMVC to me, once again. Shilling for Capital Metro's RB/CR plans so he keeps employed, at the expense of Austin's urban rail plan.

I have experienced long delays on the Drag, particularly on the bus. I think that is partly due to the fact buses stop on almost every block, and effectively contribute to the congestion.

I haven't been able to take the bus lately, so I have been driving a lot. I usually take Red River, but with the reclaimed water line construction I have been taking Guadalupe lately. I suspect I am not the only one, either. The last few days, I have been timing the amount of time lost to congestion (sitting still when the light is green) on the way home around 5:30. On Tuesday I practically sailed through, with just a momentary delay getting stuck behind an idiot trying to make an illegal left turn. I estimate I lost less than 1 minute. Last night, it was closer to 5 or 6. Tonight, in heavy rain about 5 again. So maybe on average it is more than a couple, but it is much less than the time spent at bus stops.

I have seen no indication that they will reduce service on the #1. Why is it obvious to you?

New / Small Starts is set up to support capital improvements for transit agencies. Almost all of them include vehicle purchases. After all, the largest capital asset of almost any transit agnecy is their fleet. The percentage of vehicle cost is naturally going to be larger with BRT than rail, that is the whole point of the approach. Rather than spending a large amount of money on physical improvements, the investment is put into the assets that will have the greatest short term impact. Rail is a much longer term investment than bus, which is why (in addition to flexibility), bus is a good short term, transitional investment.

I don't know what JMVC is. Another thinly veiled personal attack I assume?

If you think I am somehow against urban rail, you clearly have not been paying attention.