AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[priller]

I get upset every time I think about the light rail vote of 2000. What a huge missed opportunity. And now we have this commuter rail clunker dropped in our laps. Ugh!

[M1EK]

Maybe with some double tracking we could see some more density around the stops

With every rail project which has actually generated new density, the residential density follows initial use by commuters going to offices within walking distance of stations. Doesn't matter how often the trains run or how many tracks they have (Tri-Rail is up to 2 tracks and every 20 minutes essentially all day long; still not one square-foot of TOD).

[nixcity]

So it would be more crucial to extend the line in further, Brazos, however better, still doesn't seem close enough to me.

I get upset every time I think about the light rail vote of 2000. What a huge missed opportunity. And now we have this commuter rail clunker dropped in our laps. Ugh!

If we get the mayor's plan approved maybe by the time the last phase of the plan is ready they will decide to head for more density up Lamar or Guadalupe to hit at least West campus, triangle and Crestview instead of over to Mueller.

[PartyLine]

Hopfully it will spur high density development in the North Burnet/Gateway area.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I've driven by the new platform a number of times and have seen no evidence that it was prepared for double-tracking. In addition, the LRT estimates were for a few miles of track-in-street (with reconstruction/utility work), and then for new double-track from Lamar/Airport northwestwards for the remaining miles (many more miles). There's no way that the former was responsible for $900M of the $1B total.

Also, there's a lot of places along this line where there is NOT sufficient width to build the second track off to the side of the first (I'm thinking along Airport Blvd for starters here) - the first will have to be moved over. This isn't like Tri-Rail where the corridor was already wide enough and the main closures were for building switch sections.

Another possibility here is that they're only talking about adding a few more sections of double-track rather than double-tracking the whole length of the route. $80M couldn't cover the whole thing, after vehicles + Brazos section, but it could build a few stretches.

Not that any of this matters, of course. A double-tracked commuter line that doesn't go to UT or the Capitol isn't any better than a single-tracked commuter line that doesn't go to UT or the Capitol.

The second track goes in where the temporary platform is located next to the Convention Center. Reference: Downtown Austin Plan Transportation Framework (pages 64 & 65)

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/downtown/down...rans_framework_report_and_appendices.pdf

There are several sections of double passing track going in right now - at MLK, Kramer and I think Howard Lane stations. These are sufficient for the reverse commute on commuter rail schedule (30 minute headways), but they will need to add more to get to down to urban rail headways (15 minutes or less).

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by PartyLine

Hopfully it will spur high density development in the North Burnet/Gateway area.

Once again, you don't get "spurred" development along a rail line that nobody wants to ride (because it doesn't go anywhere you want to go). Tri-Rail has shown this over the last 20 years. Not one, not one single, not even ONE square foot of TOD along its 70 miles of length.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

There are several sections of double passing track going in right now - at MLK, Kramer and I think Howard Lane stations. These are sufficient for the reverse commute on commuter rail schedule (30 minute headways), but they will need to add more to get to down to urban rail headways (15 minutes or less).

Aaaand, we're back to the fact that you must be Lyndon Henry or one of his acolytes.

Increasing the frequency on this thing does not make it urban rail. Misleading statements like "urban rail headways" are why so many people are disappointed with this POS, by the way, as seen on Capital MetroBlog.

"Urban rail" implies that urbanites will be able to use it to walk to the train from one station in the city and walk from the train from another station in the same city. That is unlikely to ever happen with this piece of garbage (would require a lot of TOD that is unlikely to ever occur).

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by PartyLine

Hopfully it will spur high density development in the North Burnet/Gateway area.

Stranger things have happened-- there's tons of housing built around ferry terminals (when, you know, its not previously bought up for mansions and their McMansion spawn) and plans are chugging along for hundreds of units around the Mukilteo Sounder station. Depends on if people actually want to do it or not.

[M1EK]

Ferry terminals on the other side of a commute whose alternative is an incredibly long drive around a bay is a very different story than tracts of land along a commuter railroad which doesn't even beat existing express bus service.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Ferry terminals on the other side of a commute whose alternative is an incredibly long drive around a bay is a very different story than tracts of land along a commuter railroad which doesn't even beat existing express bus service.

Mukilteo is on the Seattle side of the crossing.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

With every rail project which has actually generated new density, the residential density follows initial use by commuters going to offices within walking distance of stations. Doesn't matter how often the trains run or how many tracks they have (Tri-Rail is up to 2 tracks and every 20 minutes essentially all day long; still not one square-foot of TOD).

Golly, nobody wants to build skyscrapers along a major freight corridor, when there's a miles and miles of beach 5 miles east of the tracks. The developers are going to build as near the beach as possible. By the way, there's plenty of local bus and van services to get you from the train stations to the beach developments. They are also planing and building streetcar lines to tie the beach developments to the train stations.

Tri-Rail commuter line attracts 16,000 passengers a day. The line extends 72 miles. Not one expert in the field recommends building light rail lines much over 15 miles. Get over it!

[PartyLine]

There are no beaches in Austin

[M1EK]

electricon, I recommend you spend your time elsewhere as you have absolutely no clue about Tri-Rail (and, yes, light rail lines have been built >15 miles).

The problem with Tri-Rail was that the decision to use the CSX corridor rather than the FEC corridor meant that every single passenger needed to transfer to reach their final destination. Nowhere did I advocate that they should have started with light rail instead, as in 1986 in South Florida, that wouldn't have been possible - but they could have switched to the FEC corridor at any point rather than insisting (against much advice to the contrary) that people didn't mind shuttlebuses. And, yes, they were advised on numerous occasions to switch rather than keep investing in the CSX corridor (including before the disruptive double-tracking project that just completed).

The FEC corridor isn't exactly light rail caliber either, but it IS within walking distance of a few downtown buildings in West Palm, Ft. Lauderdale, Boca Raton, and others.

And 16,000 per day on a corridor that long with many more millions of people in it is a disgrace. That's about half what Houston has managed with their light-rail start, even though Tri-Rail now runs fairly frequently all day long.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

electricon, I recommend you spend your time elsewhere as you have absolutely no clue about Tri-Rail (and, yes, light rail lines have been built >15 miles).

The problem with Tri-Rail was that the decision to use the CSX corridor rather than the FEC corridor meant that every single passenger needed to transfer to reach their final destination. Nowhere did I advocate that they should have started with light rail instead, as in 1986 in South Florida, that wouldn't have been possible - but they could have switched to the FEC corridor at any point rather than insisting (against much advice to the contrary) that people didn't mind shuttlebuses. And, yes, they were advised on numerous occasions to switch rather than keep investing in the CSX corridor (including before the disruptive double-tracking project that just completed).

The FEC corridor isn't exactly light rail caliber either, but it IS within walking distance of a few downtown buildings in West Palm, Ft. Lauderdale, Boca Raton, and others.

And 16,000 per day on a corridor that long with many more millions of people in it is a disgrace. That's about half what Houston has managed with their light-rail start, even though Tri-Rail now runs fairly frequently all day long.

I'm not going to disagree with you that the FEC corridor would have been the better choice, because it is much closer to the beach. But there were several reasons why the CSX corridor was chosen instead, the main one being it was far cheaper to implement, and what Florida taxpayers were willing to pay.

Tri-Rail is also projecting up to 27,000 passengers a day upon completion of the double tracking projects.

Commuter rail is never going to attract as many passengers as light rail. The stations are placed 3 to 5 miles apart mainly to cut down on travel time over the much longer route. Light rail stations in central business districts are placed 1/4 to 1/2 mile apart, and 1 to 2 miles apart in suburban areas. Light rail trains are used to connect neighborhoods together, commuter trains connect towns and cities together.

You don't have to leave Texas to see the differences. Just look at DART and the TRE. Let's compare the distance, time, and number of stations. Let's use DART's red line for this example.

Distance:
Red Line> 27 miles of double track (South end of track, downtown Dallas, North end of track)
TRE> 34 miles mostly single track (Downtown Fort Worth to downtown Dallas)
Time:
Red Line> 66 minutes
TRE> 63 minutes
Average Speed:
Red Line> 24.5 mph
TRE> 32 mph
Stations:
Red Line> 26 stations (Average being a station every 1.1 mile)
TRE> 10 stations (Average being a station every 3.4 miles)
Passengers:
Red Line> 30,000
TRE> 11,000
Vehicles in use:
Red Line> ~65 of 115 Kinkisharyo LRVs (the rest being use by the Blue Line)
TRE> 13 Budd RDCs, 6 locomotives, 10 bi-level coaches, 7 cab cars.
Capital Costs:
Red Line> More than $2 Billion
TRE> Less than $500 Million

[M1EK]

You keep talking, but you never listen.

In Austin, in particular, but also in other cities of note, commuter rail is now competing with light rail (like DART) for transportation dollars. They are not at all complimentary anymore; they are now competitors.

Since they are competing (and in some cases, competing exclusively, like how Austin's commuter rail forever prevents the best light rail option from being built), it's very worthwhile to compare passenger counts, even though shills like yourself may find that inconvenient.

Tri-Rail's double-tracking is essentially already complete. Their ridership grew last year, but so did everybody's (Tri-Rail saw somewhat disproportionate gains because there is essentially no city bus service throughout much of their service area, and only crude service through the majority of it).

[alexjon]

electricron, be a more gracious winner. Gloating about things that are already funded in opposition to the fading aspirations of others is cold as ice.

[electricron]

CapMetro presentation for Austin-Manor-Elgin (Green) rail line.
http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/downloads/2008-09%20GreenLinePresentation.pdf

Now, if they can only find funding for it.

[M1EK]

The Green Line will be as useless as the Red Line - ignoring completely the lessons of Tri-Rail. As expected from a DMU shill like yourself, you don't care, of course.

The $200M or so it would take to get this up and running would be a good down payment on an urban light rail system that would move a hell of a lot more people per dollar spent.

[nixcity]

7,000-12,000 riders by 2030, are you serious? I applaud places like Elgin and Manor trying to be proactive but seriously let's look at this again when we are closer to the year 2030 when this might actually be worth it.

[PartyLine]

The light rail in Houston isn't all that much you look at the map for it and it only goes like around downtown,the museum district and medical center not shure if it goes to Intercontental Airport or not or the uptown/galleria area as far as I know it doesn't yet.