AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II

[OU812]

Originally Posted by priller

No, no light rail. It's a heavy train that kind of looks light rail-ish (in fact, I just saw it at the downtown station this morning on a test run). It's called "commuter rail", and unfortunately it's not the best implementation.

And I wouldn't even call it a "system". It's only a few trains that will run on one line to north and northwest Austin and to some bedroom communities beyond that. But the only stop downtown is the one by the Convention Center, which is not really close to where most people work. They'll have to take buses or a nice long walk.

And the one thing that is close by -- 6th Street -- they don't intend to serve at all, since the train won't run on nights and weekends.

The whole thing is really dumb. It's almost like they want it to fail.

I think short-term it might not do so well, unless gas prices shoot back up to $4/gal. However long term, and I mean like 20 years into the future, it'll most likely be heavily used along with many other lines that will probably be built. Perhaps a combination of light rail, commuter rail, monorail, streetcars, and (hopefully) MAGLEV. Don't think we'll see a subway here anytime soon though- supposedly they're too expensive because of Texas' shallow limestone. Although portions of the Dallas light rail is underground in the downtown area from what I hear.

Me personally I'm waiting for the day that flying cars become a reality (as projected by science magazines and movie after sci-fi movie)

[M1EK]

Thanks, priller.

And, arbeiter, just you.

As for the "they want it to fail"; it's particularly telling that most of the anti-rail people from 2000 didn't oppose it in 2004 (Gerald Daugherty being the best example - basically, he knew that it would be a cheap way of 'showing' that 'rail doesn't work here').

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by OU812

I think short-term it might not do so well, unless gas prices shoot back up to $4/gal. However long term, and I mean like 20 years into the future, it'll most likely be heavily used along with many other lines that will probably be built.

Tri-Rail, a commuter rail line just like this POS, has been operating for about 20 years now and is still a disaster in terms of ridership - 70 miles, trains running every 20 minutes all day long, and still less than half the ridership of the typical 10-mile-long light rail start.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Raining Inside

That is the best commentary I have ever read or heard about Austin's commuter rail. It's brief, to the point and accurate. It's a better summary than anyone can gleam from all the nonsense in the transportation thread.

I've given essentially that same summary about 10 times. The problem is that there's a disinformation campaign out there by the likes of SecretAgentMan and electricron to make this thing out to be light rail (or "as good as light rail" if you run it more often), which makes everything get lost in the noise, which continues to let people believe this thing is light rail.

I can either let that stuff slide, at which point everybody remains misinformed, or keep attacking it, at which point everybody thinks it's "nonsense". Which, again, is precisely what the disinformation campaigners want.

[migol24]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I've given essentially that same summary about 10 times. The problem is that there's a disinformation campaign out there by the likes of SecretAgentMan and electricron to make this thing out to be light rail (or "as good as light rail" if you run it more often), which makes everything get lost in the noise, which continues to let people believe this thing is light rail.

I can either let that stuff slide, at which point everybody remains misinformed, or keep attacking it, at which point everybody thinks it's "nonsense". Which, again, is precisely what the disinformation campaigners want.

i don't get it. so why would they build it if they want it to fail? and what's the difference between a light rail and a commuter rail?

what do they have in houston? is it a light rail or a commuter rail? from what i've heard it only runs around downtown and a few areas outside of it. please explain to me my misinformation.

the thing about austin though, apart from houston is that people here in general support public transportation over driving your own car. i dunno... maybe it will not work like you say... but what if people keep riding it? what if people start demanding for a better more prosperous form of public transportation?

[M1EK]

migol24, Houston's is legitimate light rail (can make turns in the street; not designed to operate on existing freight rail). Austin floated a plan much like Houston's (actually more like Houston's expansion plans) in 2000.

Austin's commuter rail vehicles cannot make turns in the street - their turning radius is more like freight rail than light rail; and, in fact, freight is still running on these same exact rails; just overnight instead of during the day. The only thing 'light' about them is that they were considered a bit too light to survive a collision with a freight train, so the FRA made them armor the fuel tanks a bit. Note I said 'fuel tanks'; to most people, light rail means 'electric wire', not 'diesel'.

The typical light rail start in this country has followed this model: run in existing right-of-way (but with new infrastructure like new tracks and caternary wire) out in the suburban areas where possible, and then transition to running in street right-of-way (but in its own lane) in order to go "right up the gut" - i.e., within walking distance of major employment centers. That's what Houston is doing; it's what Dallas did; it's what Portland and Denver and Salt Lake and Minneapolis did. This is also what Austin would have done had Krusee not screwed us in 2000.

The typical commuter rail start in this country has followed this model: buy some new train cars, throw up some new stations, and stick them on an existing rail corridor on existing tracks; running shuttle buses from the stations to get people where they actually need to be. This is what Tri-Rail did and what Austin is doing now.

The Austin commuter rail line presents duplicate but inferior service to existing express buses (that can be picked up at the same park-and-rides in the suburban areas, but deliver passengers straight to their final destination rather than requiring a transfer to a shuttle bus).

Shuttle buses are the kiss of death among choice commuters.

Any other questions?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by migol24

i don't get it. so why would they build it if they want it to fail? and what's the difference between a light rail and a commuter rail?

what do they have in houston? is it a light rail or a commuter rail? from what i've heard it only runs around downtown and a few areas outside of it. please explain to me my misinformation.

Well, I doubt Capitol Metro wants it to fail, but certain people like Gerald Daugherty and others did. We had a good plan in 2000 for a true light rail start, but it was voted down. The heavy rail commuter rail that we have now is very different from light rail, and is really inconvenient to where it goes and the way it'll function. It'll help some people in North and Northwest Austin who choose to ride it. The East Side station at Plaza Saltillo is great, but there's nothing else around it and bus service there is nil. So basically it'll be a park and ride at best. The commuter rail won't go south of the river until something is done about Union Pacific in moving it to another line elsewhere, probably east of town. How can you have a good rail transportation system when only half the city is served? You can't. MIEK, are there any plans to expand the current commuter rail? Where would it go? Is there a map showing future routes?

The difference between light rail and heavy rail (commuter rail like what we have now) is that light rail trains have more frequent stops. A train might go 3 to 6 blocks and then stop at a station, and then have another station another 3 to 6 blocks away. So for a pedestrian that's a manageable walk to do to the next station and makes the train convenient. Light rail is also better suited to follow streets' routes sharing lanes with cars and is better able at making hard turns. Light rail trains have a tighter turning radius than heavy rail trains, so they can go through downtown streets and make a turn pretty much the same way a bus can.

But heavy rail is really no different than the Amtrak train that runs from Dallas to San Antonio. Our heavy rail commuter train will make less frequent stops, maybe only one every 2 or 3 miles (or farther). And it cannot follow street routes and share vehicle lanes or make tight turns. Think of our commuter trail just as you do the Union Pacific freight trains that go through Austin. They run on the same track as they do and have exactly the same turning radius. It's like asking an elephant to do the work that a horse should be doing.

The other difference is that light rail trains are silent. They make NO noise. I've seen the light rail trains in Houston and the only noise is the sound of the wheels gliding on the track. Light train trains are powered by electricity, so they're virtually silent. They also have no exhaust which is nice if they're going through downtown streets, since they wouldn't contribute to air pollution.

Heavy rail, like our commuter rail, uses diesel engines. Again, no different than a freight train really. They're noisy, lumbering and smell like anything burning diesel fuel does. Light rail trains and heavy rail trains are completely different animals.

EDIT: I knew MIEK would beat me to it.

[OU812]

I think commuter rail can work as long as it's integrated with other types of rail systems, so that a transfer is actually to another train (light rail, monorail, etc.) rather than a bus/shuttle.

I assumed that the whole point of "commuter rail" was for long distance travel within a metro area, not short inner city travel- like light rail. So I would imagine that most users will be car owners that want to occasionally park N ride.

I certainly would be using it if there was a line to the airport...would save me a ton in daily airport parking fees. As it stands now, it just doesn't "feel" as convenient if I have to get a ride to a station, get in the train, transfer downtown to a CAP MET airport bus, and then do it all again coming back (at who knows what time, which there might not be any available service).

[priller]

M1EK, you've stated many times how riders don't like shuttle buses or transfers.

I was reminded of that the other day when my wife and I took the bus from downtown out to the mall. She's been a bus rider for years (rode the express bus from Jollyville station when we lived way up there). While we were on the bus to the mall she commented on how nice it was to have this route and that it had no transfers.

"Because I don't do transfers!", she said.

[migol24]

Originally Posted by M1EK

migol24, Houston's is legitimate light rail (can make turns in the street; not designed to operate on existing freight rail). Austin floated a plan much like Houston's (actually more like Houston's expansion plans) in 2000.

Austin's commuter rail vehicles cannot make turns in the street - their turning radius is more like freight rail than light rail; and, in fact, freight is still running on these same exact rails; just overnight instead of during the day. The only thing 'light' about them is that they were considered a bit too light to survive a collision with a freight train, so the FRA made them armor the fuel tanks a bit. Note I said 'fuel tanks'; to most people, light rail means 'electric wire', not 'diesel'.

The typical light rail start in this country has followed this model: run in existing right-of-way (but with new infrastructure like new tracks and caternary wire) out in the suburban areas where possible, and then transition to running in street right-of-way (but in its own lane) in order to go "right up the gut" - i.e., within walking distance of major employment centers. That's what Houston is doing; it's what Dallas did; it's what Portland and Denver and Salt Lake and Minneapolis did. This is also what Austin would have done had Krusee not screwed us in 2000.

The typical commuter rail start in this country has followed this model: buy some new train cars, throw up some new stations, and stick them on an existing rail corridor on existing tracks; running shuttle buses from the stations to get people where they actually need to be. This is what Tri-Rail did and what Austin is doing now.

The Austin commuter rail line presents duplicate but inferior service to existing express buses (that can be picked up at the same park-and-rides in the suburban areas, but deliver passengers straight to their final destination rather than requiring a transfer to a shuttle bus).

Shuttle buses are the kiss of death among choice commuters.

Any other questions?

i see.

nope. no other questions. it's like you said, i was misinformed. i always thought it was a light rail like in houston. i just never looked into it.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by OU812

I think commuter rail can work as long as it's integrated with other types of rail systems, so that a transfer is actually to another train (light rail, monorail, etc.) rather than a bus/shuttle.

I assumed that the whole point of "commuter rail" was for long distance travel within a metro area, not short inner city travel- like light rail. So I would imagine that most users will be car owners that want to occasionally park N ride.

I certainly would be using it if there was a line to the airport...would save me a ton in daily airport parking fees. As it stands now, it just doesn't "feel" as convenient if I have to get a ride to a station, get in the train, transfer downtown to a CAP MET airport bus, and then do it all again coming back (at who knows what time, which there might not be any available service).

This theory works in areas where lots of people are already used to taking urban rail - i.e., as the tenth step in a rail transit system, but most definitely NOT as the first step. Nobody has ever, ever, ever succeeded with building commuter rail first; and even when it does 'succeed', it's always just a small part of overall ridership compared to urban rail (TRE in Dallas, for instance, is viewed as a success but still carries only a fraction of people compared to DART. Likewise with LIRR vs. the subway).

By the way, the reason light rail has taken off the last 20 years is that it can function as heavy rail in the suburban areas (stops several miles apart) and as urban rail in the core (runs right up the gut, in the street, around corners, etc). The 2000 LRT plan served the suburbs better than commuter rail will, and served the city, while commuter rail does absolutely nothing for the city of Austin, but it precludes going back and doing light rail right later.

[nixcity]

It's too bad there hasn't been more noise made this election about the most recent plan that has a line from airport to downtown/capitol, and then supposed to go to Mueller. Hopefully by the time they get the first 3 phases complete they will realize it makes much more sense to go from the capitol over to Guadalupe, all the way to at least the triangle if not to airport. Also, the city asked for a lot of federal stimulus money for this. I wonder if we aren't hearing more about this in the media because we haven't gotten the go to use federal funds.

[M1EK]

We're not hearing about it because McCracken has backed away from talking about it for the mayoral campaign and now says we can't afford to float a bond for at least a couple years (may seek alternative funding). Leffingwell doesn't really believe in it, but is willing to talk about putting a funding bond before voters.

http://www.ideasforaustin.com/pages/economy/suggestions/164942-put-rail-on-guadalupe

[zx14]

Light rail forum is taking over. For a change of pace what is going on with stacys project.

[Nickelplate]

Originally Posted by zx14

Light rail forum is taking over. For a change of pace what is going on with stacys project.

Nothing...its a recession or worse!! Who the hell would start a project now knowing that we have how many unoccupied new office buildings in the Austin area? Who's gonna fill an 830' condo tower? Austin needs a break from all this construction to let the market catch up.

[migol24]

Originally Posted by Nickelplate

Nothing...its a recession or worse!! Who the hell would start a project now knowing that we have how many unoccupied new office buildings in the Austin area? Who's gonna fill an 830' condo tower? Austin needs a break from all this construction to let the market catch up.

it will catch up... now more than before people are talking about austin more and more. austin will eventually get bigger and i'm sure it will get built.... i predict like in 2012... by then maybe the actual building will be better than the one rendered.

[priller]

I've typed out "Austonian" so many times that yesterday, when filling out a form online, I typed "Auston" for the city name.

Speaking of which, the Austonian moved up to 44th floor today! Now tied with with 360 for the most floors in Austin.

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by priller

I've typed out "Austonian" so many times that yesterday, when filling out a form online, I typed "Auston" for the city name.

Speaking of which, the Austonian moved up to 44th floor today! Now tied with with 360 for the most floors in Austin.

Awesome! From my office complex, the eye-level height of the Austonian is now taller than the main roof of 360. This takes into account elevation differences. Both are roughly the same distance from my vantage point. We're perhaps a month away from the Austonian 'officially' taking the honor of Austin's tallest.

[arbeiter]

Is there any map out there or record kept on the empty lots downtown? I was walking through downtown a few nights ago and was still dismayed - there is a lot of room for growth.

The biggest parking lots that could stand to go away are the Las Manitas graveyard, the 3rd and Congress parking lot, the 4th and Colorado parking lot with the infamous steep staircase (how many drunk broads have slipped on their stilettos at that very spot?) and the lot in front of Republic Square. Forgive me since I've been gone for 5 years, but are there proposals out to put buildings on these three lots?

[zx14]

Austonian is at about 463 feet now and apon competion of the 44th should be at 475. That is still roughly 100 feet below the top of the spire of 360. That means that 9 more floors will have to be completed. At a floor a week it looks like around the first week of july to maybe the second it will be the tallest.