AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[PartyLine]

Personaly I think this tread should be closed since it's nothing but fighting now.

[Saddle Man]

No. This is the most informative (thank you M1EK) and entertaining threads on skyscraperpage.

[hookem]

I like this thread too. I think it's especially important now, with the delays and controversy regarding the rail system. People out there might be getting curious and trying to find out what is going on, and hopefully they find this thread. I've found it very informative.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by hookem

I like this thread too. I think it's especially important now, with the delays and controversy regarding the rail system. People out there might be getting curious and trying to find out what is going on, and hopefully they find this thread. I've found it very informative.

To get that info, you have to slog through various "Austin passed the 2000 LRT initiative, why don't we have LRT, commuter rail sucks, Austin is the most urban city in the country even without LRT, WHERE IS MY LRT" and "Commuter rail, wave of the fyoochurrrrrrrrrrrrr, it can TOO turn without taking 6/8s of a block, it only takes 5/8s" posts.

[Jdawgboy]

I think this is an important thread to keep open because it is a major issue that Austin faces, but maybe if we could expand the conversation to include other types of transportation and not just rail, then it can be alittle more inviting for others to join in on the conversation.

I hear that later this year they will finally start construction on the southbound bridges of 290/71 and I-35. I am going to be very happy when they actually complete that.

[paulsjv]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I hear that later this year they will finally start construction on the southbound bridges of 290/71 and I-35. I am going to be very happy when they actually complete that.

It'll probably take 10 years to complete like it did for them to what they have now. lol

[southsideatx04]

Originally Posted by paulsjv

It'll probably take 10 years to complete like it did for them to what they have now. lol

You beat me to it.

[rich1077]

Not sure if this has been posted yet but thought it was interesting and relevant.

Smart Fortwo car-sharing program to begin in Texas
Stuttgart, Germany - Daimler AG has announced that it will launch a car-sharing program, featuring mild hybrid versions of the Smart Fortwo, in Austin, Texas this fall. The program, called Car2go and already launched in Germany, will use Smart cars fitted with an automatic start/stop system.

“The very promising results of the first, internal pilot phase in Ulm (Germany) show that with Car2go, we have found another answer to current and future mobility needs in metrop0litan areas,” said Dr. Thomas Weber of Daimler AG. “Our project in Austin is the next logical step.”

The Ulm program, launched in October 2008, allows drivers to rent the car spontaneously on the street, or to pre-book it via mobile phone or Internet. The car is used for as long as desired, and then returned to any unoccupied public parking space within the area of operation. The charge of 19 Euro cents per minute covers taxes, insurance, mileage and fuel, while longer periods can be purchased for €9.90 per hour, or €49 per day. Users register for free and receive a small seal on their driver’s licenses, which opens the vehicle via a card reader behind the windshield.

The initial Ulm project used 50 Smart vehicles, rented by 500 Daimler employees and 200 of their family members as test drivers. In peak periods, the entire fleet was used to full capacity, and 8,000 rentals have been registered since the start. The project has now been moved into a public testing phase with 200 vehicles.

Daimler chose Austin because of its size, its strong sense of environmental responsibility, and that it houses the country’s fourth-largest university. “We deliberately chose a large American city,” said Jérome Guillen, director of Business Innovation at Daimler. “In the USA, the car-sharing market has the highest growth rates in the world. For this reason we see very good chances of success there for Car2go, especially because Car2go offers many advantages over the known car-sharing offers.” Guillen said these include free availability without obligation to use certain parking spaces, on-the-spot rental for as long as desired, and a simple, clear price structure.

As with the first phase of the German pilot project, the Austin Car2go will begin with a defined group of users, such as city employees. It is then planned to make the program accessible to the public in a second step. The initial fleet is expected to be 200 Smart Fortwo vehicles with start/stop capability.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/0...n-in-texas.htm

[arbeiter]

I pretty much ignored this thread for 2 years + because I didn't live here and M1EK is so righteous that he manages to wring out any humor that might be ironically contained herein.

And I have nothing more to contribute except to tell you that I am on an express bus using the free wi-fi! A small measure in the scheme of things, but it makes Capital Metro only kinda sucky instead of incredibly sucky.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by rich1077

Not sure if this has been posted yet but thought it was interesting and relevant.


http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/0...n-in-texas.htm

I posted another article on this in the thread below too. Have a look.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=167020

[M1EK]

crackplog

[Scottolini]

Cap Metro makeover approved

By Mike Ward | Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 01:17 PM

A bill that will makeover the Capital Metro board and amp up transparency and accountability in the Austin-area transportation agency was approved today by the Texas Senate.

Senate Bill 2015 was approved after brief debate.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte..._approved.html

Any analysis M1EK?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

Cap Metro makeover approved

By Mike Ward | Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 01:17 PM

A bill that will makeover the Capital Metro board and amp up transparency and accountability in the Austin-area transportation agency was approved today by the Texas Senate.

Senate Bill 2015 was approved after brief debate.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte..._approved.html

Any analysis M1EK?

How much of an improvement is this over the existing scheme?

Existing scheme:
In May 1997, the Texas Legislature changed the structure of the Capital Metro Board. It replaced Capital Metro's seven-member appointed Board with a five-member interim Board appointed by the Austin Transportation Study which is now known as the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization or CAMPO.

The Interim Board members were to serve until such time that a permanent Board of Directors could be constituted with five elected officials and two (appointed) members-at-large. The permanent Board is composed of the following:

a) Two council members appointed by the Austin City Council;
b) One commissioner appointed by the Travis County Commissioners' Court;
c) One mayoral representative appointed by the mayors of the suburban cities of Travis County within the service area;
d) One representative appointed by a panel made up of the mayors of the suburban cities, the Williamson County Judge, and the presiding officer of each municipal utility district; and
e) Two members-at-large appointed by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

New scheme:
Under the bill, the seven-member Cap Metro board must includes:
a) One City of Austin elected official;
b) Three appointments from the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization,
i) Two of which must live in the largest area city, one of which must be an elected official, another that must have at least 10 years’ experience in finance and accounting,
ii) And one that must have 10 years’ executive-level experience.
c) One appointment each must be made in joint appointments by Williamson County and Austin,
d) And Austin and Travis County, and small cities within Cap Metro’s jurisdiction.

The new scheme includes two elected officials, with five appointees. The existing scheme includes five elected officials and two appointees.

I don't understand why CapMetro can't adopt the very successful DART scheme?

Sec. 452.572. BOARD MEMBERSHIP; MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION. (a) The subregional board is composed of 15 members appointed by the governing bodies of the municipalities in the subregional authority.
(b) The governing body of a municipality entitled to appoint more than one board member may appoint a number of members less than the number allocated to the municipality. Those appointed members may cast the same number of votes as the number of members allocated, but a member may not cast a divided vote.
Sec. 452.573. ALLOCATION OF MEMBERSHIP AMONG MUNICIPALITIES. (a) A governing body of a municipality in a subregion may make appointments to the subregional board in the same ratio as the population of the appointing municipality bears to the population of the subregion.
(b) A municipality the population of which entitles it to make a fraction of an appointment may combine that fraction with one or more other municipalities in the subregion to be entitled to make one appointment.
(c) Municipalities combining population under Subsection (b) must agree on the method of making the appointment.
(d) A municipality may not combine its population with another municipality for the purpose of minimizing the representation on the board of a racial or ethnic minority.
(e) A combination under Subsection (b) of two or more municipalities having insufficient population to receive an allocation of one membership must be made before the 61st day after the date for establishing or restructuring a board under Section 452.577.

Presently, here is the Dart municipal representations.
Dallas > 8 members
Garland > 1 member
Irving > 1 member
Plano > 1 member
Addison, Highland Park, Richardson and University Park > 1 member
Carrollton and Irving > 1 member
Dallas, Plano, Glenn Heights and Cockrell Hill > 1 member
Farmers Branch, Garland and Rowlett > 1 member.
Total = 15 members. The board represents every member city by it's population, guaranteeing one voter-one vote. No one is under represented.

With either CapMetro proposal, the new or existing, there's no incentive nor guarantee joining cities will get any representation at all on CapMetro's board. Any some wonder why these cities haven't joined, or have dropped from the district?
As a reminder, here's the latest population numbers of various cities in the Austin area.
Travis County: 974,365
Austin > 392,195 in Travis County (Total 743,074)
Bee Cave > 1,700
Briarcliff > 845
Creedmoor > 188
Jonestown > 1,681
Lago Vista > 5,573
Lakeway > 14,000
Manor > 5,500
Pflugerville > 40,003
Point Venture > 472
Rollingwood > 1,359
San Leanna > 476
Sunset Valley > 478
The Hills > 1,998
Volente > 394
Webberville > 315
West Lake Hills > 3,021
Williamson County: 373,363
Austin > 350,879 in Williamson County (Total 743,074)
Bartlett > 1,701
Cedar Park > 52,058
Florence > 1,054
Georgetown > 50,000
Granger > 1,331
Hutto > 17,120
Jarrell > 1,408
Leander > 20,451
Liberty Hill > 1,491
Round Rock > 86,316
Taylor > 15,014
Thorndale > 1,316
Thrall > 847
Weir > 637
Just looking at the county populations, Williamson County should have 1 in 4 representation on CapMetro's board, assuming all towns and cities join CapMetro. But that isn't true, but neither is it true for Travis County.
CapMetro members:
Austin > 743,074
Jonestown > 1,681
Lago Vista > 5,573
Leander > 20,451
Manor > 5,500
Point Venture > 472
San Leanna > 476
Volente > 394
Total = 777,621 (30k not within Austin with 20.5k from Leander and 5.5k from Manor
Large non members jurisdictions, including those who dropped CapMetro(*)
*Cedar Park > 52,058
Georgetown > 50,000
Hutto > 17,120
*Pflugerville > 40,003
Taylor > 15,014
Total = 174,195 (Over 92k withdrawing from CapMetro, another 82k not joining)

If a Dart 15 member board was used instead, and if all large cities (>5,000) from both counties joined, the split-up would look like this:
Total = 1,016,975; therefore each member would represent 68,000 people.
Austin > 10.9 members
Lago Vista > 0.08 member
Lakeway > 0.20 member
Manor > 0.08 member
Cedar Park > 0.76 member
Georgetown > 0.74 member
Hutto > 0.25 member
Pflugerville > 0.59 member
Taylor > 0.22 member
Rough Total = 11+.1+.2+.1+.76+.74+.25+.6+.22 = 13.97, leaving 1.03 members left.
My point is, Austin would still have an overwhelming majority representation on the CapMetro board.

[M1EK]

It's not enough; Cap Metro capital budget needs to be stripped and placed under control of CAMPO (which also needs more Austin representation, but at least is run by grownups in comparison).

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by electricron

How much of an improvement is this over the existing scheme?

Existing scheme:
In May 1997, the Texas Legislature changed the structure of the Capital Metro Board. It replaced Capital Metro's seven-member appointed Board with a five-member interim Board appointed by the Austin Transportation Study which is now known as the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization or CAMPO.

The Interim Board members were to serve until such time that a permanent Board of Directors could be constituted with five elected officials and two (appointed) members-at-large. The permanent Board is composed of the following:

a) Two council members appointed by the Austin City Council;
b) One commissioner appointed by the Travis County Commissioners' Court;
c) One mayoral representative appointed by the mayors of the suburban cities of Travis County within the service area;
d) One representative appointed by a panel made up of the mayors of the suburban cities, the Williamson County Judge, and the presiding officer of each municipal utility district; and
e) Two members-at-large appointed by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

New scheme:
Under the bill, the seven-member Cap Metro board must includes:
a) One City of Austin elected official;
b) Three appointments from the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization,
i) Two of which must live in the largest area city, one of which must be an elected official, another that must have at least 10 years’ experience in finance and accounting,
ii) And one that must have 10 years’ executive-level experience.
c) One appointment each must be made in joint appointments by Williamson County and Austin,
d) And Austin and Travis County, and small cities within Cap Metro’s jurisdiction.

The new scheme includes two elected officials, with five appointees. The existing scheme includes five elected officials and two appointees.

I don't understand why CapMetro can't adopt the very successful DART scheme?

Sec. 452.572. BOARD MEMBERSHIP; MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION. (a) The subregional board is composed of 15 members appointed by the governing bodies of the municipalities in the subregional authority.
(b) The governing body of a municipality entitled to appoint more than one board member may appoint a number of members less than the number allocated to the municipality. Those appointed members may cast the same number of votes as the number of members allocated, but a member may not cast a divided vote.
Sec. 452.573. ALLOCATION OF MEMBERSHIP AMONG MUNICIPALITIES. (a) A governing body of a municipality in a subregion may make appointments to the subregional board in the same ratio as the population of the appointing municipality bears to the population of the subregion.
(b) A municipality the population of which entitles it to make a fraction of an appointment may combine that fraction with one or more other municipalities in the subregion to be entitled to make one appointment.
(c) Municipalities combining population under Subsection (b) must agree on the method of making the appointment.
(d) A municipality may not combine its population with another municipality for the purpose of minimizing the representation on the board of a racial or ethnic minority.
(e) A combination under Subsection (b) of two or more municipalities having insufficient population to receive an allocation of one membership must be made before the 61st day after the date for establishing or restructuring a board under Section 452.577.

Presently, here is the Dart municipal representations.
Dallas > 8 members
Garland > 1 member
Irving > 1 member
Plano > 1 member
Addison, Highland Park, Richardson and University Park > 1 member
Carrollton and Irving > 1 member
Dallas, Plano, Glenn Heights and Cockrell Hill > 1 member
Farmers Branch, Garland and Rowlett > 1 member.
Total = 15 members. The board represents every member city by it's population, guaranteeing one voter-one vote. No one is under represented.

With either CapMetro proposal, the new or existing, there's no incentive nor guarantee joining cities will get any representation at all on CapMetro's board. Any some wonder why these cities haven't joined, or have dropped from the district?
As a reminder, here's the latest population numbers of various cities in the Austin area.
Travis County: 974,365
Austin > 392,195 in Travis County (Total 743,074)
Bee Cave > 1,700
Briarcliff > 845
Creedmoor > 188
Jonestown > 1,681
Lago Vista > 5,573
Lakeway > 14,000
Manor > 5,500
Pflugerville > 40,003
Point Venture > 472
Rollingwood > 1,359
San Leanna > 476
Sunset Valley > 478
The Hills > 1,998
Volente > 394
Webberville > 315
West Lake Hills > 3,021
Williamson County: 373,363
Austin > 350,879 in Williamson County (Total 743,074)
Bartlett > 1,701
Cedar Park > 52,058
Florence > 1,054
Georgetown > 50,000
Granger > 1,331
Hutto > 17,120
Jarrell > 1,408
Leander > 20,451
Liberty Hill > 1,491
Round Rock > 86,316
Taylor > 15,014
Thorndale > 1,316
Thrall > 847
Weir > 637
Just looking at the county populations, Williamson County should have 1 in 4 representation on CapMetro's board, assuming all towns and cities join CapMetro. But that isn't true, but neither is it true for Travis County.
CapMetro members:
Austin > 743,074
Jonestown > 1,681
Lago Vista > 5,573
Leander > 20,451
Manor > 5,500
Point Venture > 472
San Leanna > 476
Volente > 394
Total = 777,621 (30k not within Austin with 20.5k from Leander and 5.5k from Manor
Large non members jurisdictions, including those who dropped CapMetro(*)
*Cedar Park > 52,058
Georgetown > 50,000
Hutto > 17,120
*Pflugerville > 40,003
Taylor > 15,014
Total = 174,195 (Over 92k withdrawing from CapMetro, another 82k not joining)

If a Dart 15 member board was used instead, and if all large cities (>5,000) from both counties joined, the split-up would look like this:
Total = 1,016,975; therefore each member would represent 68,000 people.
Austin > 10.9 members
Lago Vista > 0.08 member
Lakeway > 0.20 member
Manor > 0.08 member
Cedar Park > 0.76 member
Georgetown > 0.74 member
Hutto > 0.25 member
Pflugerville > 0.59 member
Taylor > 0.22 member
Rough Total = 11+.1+.2+.1+.76+.74+.25+.6+.22 = 13.97, leaving 1.03 members left.
My point is, Austin would still have an overwhelming majority representation on the CapMetro board.

You forgot places like Elgin and Bastrop,Dripping Springs,Buda,Kyle,San Marcos

[electricron]

Originally Posted by PartyLine

You forgot places like Elgin and Bastrop,Dripping Springs,Buda,Kyle,San Marcos

I didn't forget them. Since they aren't in Travis or Williamson Counties, I didn't list them.

[PartyLine]

Oh I thought you were listing the whole Austin metro sorry

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The station is at the Convention Center. Always was, always will be; an extension even just to Seaholm would require an additional vote.

Any additional rail should require another vote, including the streetcar plans the city has developed.

Most of the criticisms of CapMetro can be blamed on office holding politicians running the board, imho. By the time they finish earmarking CapMetro funds for their own government capital projects, like day care centers, there isn't any funds left for CapMetro's transit capital projects.

Which is the main reason they have built the Red Line on as tight a budget possible, and why they are having difficulties getting it into service, imho.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by alexjon

To get that info, you have to slog through various "Austin passed the 2000 LRT initiative, why don't we have LRT, commuter rail sucks, Austin is the most urban city in the country even without LRT, WHERE IS MY LRT" and "Commuter rail, wave of the fyoochurrrrrrrrrrrrr, it can TOO turn without taking 6/8s of a block, it only takes 5/8s" posts.

[arbeiter]

You mean to tell me there are almost as many people in Wilco Austin as in Travis County Austin? That seems impossible. That would mean that the area off Parmer/McNeil and north of Anderson Mill Road (roughly) equals 300,000+...