AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by paulsjv

You know if everyone knows this and thinks the RL is a joke why in the world did voters vote for it?

Because people bought the crap in 2004 that it would be such a great success that it would immediately yield momentum for more and better rail (nobody but yours truly bothered to point out that even if it was by some miracle a success, it precluded light rail on the one truly obvious corridor in the city). My blog goes back that far; you can always look at the campaign timeframe.

Everybody else trusted Capital Metro that they'd be taken care of later, in other words.

Here's one representative posting from the time:

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000046.html


Don't Kid Yourself: Commuter Rail Precludes Light Rail




A lot of the effort to mollify center-city people like me who are disappointed that Capital Metro's All Systems Go plan does nothing for the densest residential neighborhoods of the city and doesn't deliver passengers to the two largest potential attractors (UT and state capitol) has gone into two messages:



The first message is "commuter rail is just like light rail" - relatively few people have bought this, outside the suburbs, since they know that rail going down Airport Blvd. isn't going to do anything for any corridors where there's any real density today or where density in the future is even remotely attractive. This has morphed into "once we double-track and build more stations, you center-city folks can just catch a quick bus to or from the commuter rail station" which I have a hard time believing is fooling anybody, but you never know. I've talked a bit about this and plan on doing more in a later article, but not today. Capital Metro's words are: Commuter Rail

Urban Service

Operating on existing freight tracks, this line from Leander to Downtown could provide convenient service for both suburban and central city passengers.



The second message, and the one I'll talk about today, is the idea that we can get light rail in the urban core "later" if we approve this plan now. The genius of this message is that it does a fairly good job of lumping opponents like me in with kooky pie-in-the-sky non-pragmatists who are unwilling to get something running on the ground because of the pursuit of the perfect solution.



The problem is that this message is misleading at best, and a lie at worst. The reason to oppose this plan is because it's deadly to future transit operations in this city. IE, not just because it doesn't do enough right away, but because it will actively prevent more effective solutions from ever happening.



Two of the strongest constituencies for ridership in the original (2000) rail plan (which was destroyed primarily through legislative manuevering by Mike Krusee) were state workers and university people.



With the 2000 plan, the state workers who live anywhere in the northwest corner of the metro area could have driven to a station, boarded the rail, and rode it straight to the Capitol. Roughly the first 2/3 of the length of this trip would have been on what is now the commuter rail line; i.e., completely separate right-of-way. The remaining third would have followed the Lamar/Guadalupe corridor with prioritization far exceeding that which the new Rapid Bus will get.



The university was going to be a huge attractor for ridership in two ways. Like state workers, university workers (or students) could board anywhere along the route and get delivered directly to the destination (at least, on Guadalupe St., which is close enough to walk to anywhere at UT). A second group of riders would be travelling to the UT satellite campus on Burnet Rd. north of US 183. The mere fact that a rail link would exist between the two campuses (again, walking distance on both ends) was going to provide a powerful core of riders on day one.



The current commuter rail plan, for reference, requires both of these constituencies to transfer to shuttle buses to reach their final destination. This, as I've pointed out before, means that anybody who has a car and can afford parking will never ride this route.The shuttle transfer kills the performance of the transit trip to the point where only people who don't own cars or have difficult parking situations would consider it, as is the case with today's express bus lines.



So what about a future light rail line, as Capital Metro winks and nods might someday fill this gap? There are at least three obvious reasons why this won't happen (at least, in a way which solves these constituencies' travel problems).



1. A new light rail line down Guadalupe/Lamar, if commuter rail is built, cannot follow the original 2000 path northwest on the current rail right-of-way. The two vehicles have completely incompatible trackage, even if scheduling issues could be resolved. In fact, I have a hard time believing it's feasible to even have a light rail line on this corridor cross the commuter rail line, making even transfers an incredibly difficult proposition. Thus, the areas where we were counting on the most long-distance residential travel cannot be served even if we get a new light rail line down the Guadalupe/Lamar corridor.



2. The operation of the commuter rail line, in my opinion, will swamp Capital Metro with enough additional operating costs that they will be unable to resume saving even 1/4 cent of their sales tax money (as they could today). See previous articles by me for why I think this system is not going to attract significant ridership compared to the light rail model - in short, no area like us in the last ten years has started with commuter rail for a very good reason: they saw what happened in South Florida.



3. The investment in the so-called rapid bus vehicles is going to be difficult to abandon, both financially and politically. There aren't many corridors in Austin where these vehicles could be shifted (physical constraints). The pressure to keep this crappy part of the system running is going to be very very hard to beat.



So, I think anybody who's tempted to vote for this plan with the 'understanding' that we can come back later and solve the needs of actual Austin residents rather than pandering to Cedar Park ought to think twice.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Two of the strongest constituencies for ridership in the original (2000) rail plan (which was destroyed primarily through legislative manuevering by Mike Krusee) were state workers and university people.
The university was going to be a huge attractor for ridership in two ways. Like state workers, university workers (or students) could board anywhere along the route and get delivered directly to the destination (at least, on Guadalupe St., which is close enough to walk to anywhere at UT). A second group of riders would be travelling to the UT satellite campus on Burnet Rd. north of US 183. The mere fact that a rail link would exist between the two campuses (again, walking distance on both ends) was going to provide a powerful core of riders on day one.
The current commuter rail plan, for reference, requires both of these constituencies to transfer to shuttle buses to reach their final destination. This, as I've pointed out before, means that anybody who has a car and can afford parking will never ride this route.The shuttle transfer kills the performance of the transit trip to the point where only people who don't own cars or have difficult parking situations would consider it, as is the case with today's express bus lines.
1. The two vehicles have completely incompatible trackage, even if scheduling issues could be resolved. In fact, I have a hard time believing it's feasible to even have a light rail line on this corridor cross the commuter rail line, making even transfers an incredibly difficult proposition.
2. in short, no area like us in the last ten years has started with commuter rail for a very good reason: they saw what happened in South Florida.
3. The investment in the so-called rapid bus vehicles is going to be difficult to abandon, both financially and politically

The 2000 rail plan was voted down because it was too expensive. The 2004 rail plan was voted for because it was cheaper. Why is it so hard to accept that.

As for a light rail line on Guadalupe/Lamar, it's still possible. CapMetro is building the cheaper BRT line on them now, because (1) it is cheaper and (2) voters voted against light rail on these streets in 2000. So, why is CapMetro being so wrong listening to their voters?

As for being within walking distances to the UT campus and State Office buildings??? I'll agree Guadalupe is closer than the Red Line, but not necessarily within walking distances. You have stated 1/4 mile (1320 feet) being the limit most people are willing to walk many times. The front door of the Capital is 1200 feet away from Guadalupe and 12th. San Jacinto Blvd is more lile 1900 feet away from Guadalupe, so most of the State Office Buildings are beyond walking range, and that's not including exactly where the light rail station would have been located on the north-south axis, whether it was 11, 12th, 13th, 14th, or 15th Street.
As for the University, the same holds true too. Using 21st Street as the light rail station location, Guadalupe to University is ~700 feet, Guadalupe to Speedway is ~1400 feet, Guadalupe to San Jacinto is ~2400 feet. Again, half the campus is further than walking distance.
As for the direct transit link between campuses, the Red Line is in the same corridor the light rail line would have been near the north campus. Depending upon station location, if one type of rail needs a shuttle, both do....
In reply to (1), you're right, light rail and commuter rail are incompatible, just like Metrorail and freight rail are incompatible. DART has no trouble building light rail over freight rail and commuter rail tracks. Metrorail had no problems going over the MoPac rail line either. DART builds light rail and commuter rail stations that allow transfers, so can CapMetro.
In reply to (2), I guess Albuquerque, Camden, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, San Diego, and Denver don't count, all have built or have started building new commuter rail lines since 2000.
In reply to (3), difficult but not impossible. San Antonio is also building a BRT line, so Austin isn't alone.
Buses last 10 to 15 years, in which they must be replaced. Ottawa is presently planning to convert a significant portion of their BRT to light rail. So, it isn't impossible.....

[M1EK]

electricron, I give you kudos for having the guts to show your face after the DMU disaster showed its true colors, but your facts are very very wrong.

2000 election lost because it was supposed to be a 2001 election; forced to the polls early in electioneering by Krusee (who's now up in your neck of the woods trying to make money off another rail line - I'm now wondering if you know him). Why did he force it to the polls early? There was this guy running for President in 2000; can't remember his name; but he seemed to have a lot of pull with suburban Republicans in Texas - even around Austin. Wish I could recall.

As for Guadalupe distance to Capitol versus Red Line - the 2000 route was going to either run down G/Lavaca all the way through downtown (unlikely); shift to Colorado (a bit more likely) or all the way to Congress somewhere between 9th/10th/11th (most likely).

As for why we'll not get LRT on Guadalupe - again, you're forgetting the political reality - we can't get a lane with less than overwhelming ridership; and a line that only runs from Crestview south can't produce the numbers. A line crossing at Airport would shut down the intersection almost completely (people already complain about just the Red Line there); an elevated crossing is a non-starter.

But thanks for playing.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

As for why we'll not get LRT on Guadalupe - again, you're forgetting the political reality - we can't get a lane with less than overwhelming ridership; and a line that only runs from Crestview south can't produce the numbers. A line crossing at Airport would shut down the intersection almost completely (people already complain about just the Red Line there); an elevated crossing is a non-starter.

So, you're admitting the rail line has to reach the suburbs after all?

Why are elevated trains crossings automatically a non-starter? Both DART and TRE use elevated crossings when there is sufficient traffic to warrant them.
TRE new viaduct at Centerport in Fort Worth


DART new Beltline Road viaduct and station in Carrollton


Yes, even the TRE uses viaducts to go over busy streets. Here's a recent video....
• Video Link

[M1EK]

Dear electicron,

Since my preferred alternative if I were czar is the 2000 light rail route, which does what DART does and runs in-street in the city and fast in the burbs, obviously I want the train to hit the burbs.

And the problem here is that the elevated crossing would be within a stone's throw of many neighborhoods that would kick and scream in a city that can't tolerate hurting neighborhood feelings.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

And the problem here is that the elevated crossing would be within a stone's throw of many neighborhoods that would kick and scream in a city that can't tolerate hurting neighborhood feelings.

Surprisingly, DART doesn't hear the same from Dallas neighborhoods, but then DART listens to them and add fixes they want. Like sound walls and shrubs (landscaping) when asked.

[migol24]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Dear electicron,

Since my preferred alternative if I were czar is the 2000 light rail route, which does what DART does and runs in-street in the city and fast in the burbs, obviously I want the train to hit the burbs.

And the problem here is that the elevated crossing would be within a stone's throw of many neighborhoods that would kick and scream in a city that can't tolerate hurting neighborhood feelings.

are you talking about something similar to the Bart from San Francisco? This thing is ridiculous... it's a commuter rail that brings in people from two hours away from the bay area. places like modesto have a bus that takes you to dublin then you catch the Bart which does not interfere at all with the suburbs or neighborhoods. It goes along parallel with the freeway when it can then it goes above the ground like a monorail.... then it goes underground, then it goes into the bay.... then it flies in the air and takes you to mars.... ok i'm kidding about the last part. but yes this sounds similar to the Bart.... unless i'm just eavesdropping into a conversation that i'm clearly not familiar with. ha!

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by migol24

are you talking about something similar to the Bart from San Francisco? This thing is ridiculous... it's a commuter rail that brings in people from two hours away from the bay area. places like modesto have a bus that takes you to dublin then you catch the Bart which does not interfere at all with the suburbs or neighborhoods. It goes along parallel with the freeway when it can then it goes above the ground like a monorail.... then it goes underground, then it goes into the bay.... then it flies in the air and takes you to mars.... ok i'm kidding about the last part. but yes this sounds similar to the Bart.... unless i'm just eavesdropping into a conversation that i'm clearly not familiar with. ha!

I think DART does run slower and stations are closer together in central Dallas. After CityPlace, they are more spread out - a mile or more between probably. But in terms of special grade separation in the suburbs vs. in the city, I don't know how much of that is the case. I know that it runs on its own right of way after Deep Ellum up to at least Richardson.

[wwmiv]

Common M1EK thought: "People HATE to Transfer"

New WWMIV rebuttal: begins ~ @ 4 minute mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLZ4eE5L20Y&feature=related


Jarrett Walker, for those who don't know (M1EK), is the author of humantransit.com and is an authority within the public transit development field.

[natrius]

wwmiv, the argument in that video doesn't match the argument that M1EK typically makes. Walker is basically saying that having a high frequency crosstown route that intersects with a high frequency route to downtown is better than having both a crosstown route and a downtown route from the same origin that both have low frequencies. Neither the Red Line nor the circulator buses have high frequencies, so Walker's argument doesn't apply.

Transfers can be a superior option. That doesn't mean they all are.

[wwmiv]

I actually wasn't making this argument for his typical schpeal about buses, but about a rail intersection at Lamar and Airport.

[natrius]

The argument still doesn't apply. Transfers reduce ridership. Walker's point is that introducing a transfer can still be a net positive because you might be able to increase frequency and simplicity to offset the cost of the transfer. There is no positive aspect of requiring a transfer at Crestview, so a system that combined the Red Line with a light rail line to downtown would have significantly lower ridership than the 2000 line was projected to have.

I don't get what point you're trying to make.

[M1EK]

I comment regularly at Jarrett's blog and read it religiously, by the way. He's a transit planner whose customers desperately want justification for providing bus service instead of rail - and he will play up the bus aspect whenever possible to give them what they're asking for - it's his job.

Doesn't mean I don't argue with him about the transfer point (in fact, I use the Red Line as my example). The Red Line has already shown that people hate transferring - the only question is whether they'd hate transferring to a train less to make a huge difference.

[M1EK]

And the frequencies they're talking about which reduce the transfer penalties to their lowest possible minimum are ones we've never seen before in this area - 5 minutes or so. We will likely never see that frequency even on the urban rail plan (if it can ever get built out of the Red Line disaster); much less the Red Line. The Rapid Bus plan which supposedly offers buses so often you hardly have to wait is upping peak frequency to around 10 minutes.

[M1EK]

Here's a good resource made by Matthew Roberts, a Leander college student studying in Oregon:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&h...4567,-97.703819&spn=0.2855,0.528374&z=12

It's a 'frequent network' map for Austin. Note that our most frequent non-shuttle routes never get any better than 15 or so. I've let him know that based on other cities it's probably not a good idea to keep the UT shuttles in there (since they don't run on a reliable schedule for anybody but students).

[M1EK]

Finally, Jarrett himself isn't really consistent on transferring. His most recent post related to the subject here: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/08/sing...y-eliminated-complaints-predictable.html

has this near the top (emphasis mine):

Eliminating these penalties is a crucial step in creating an integrated and versatile transit network, because (a) networks designed around connections are more legible and frequent than those that aren't and (b) transferring is already enough of a hassle without these penalties. The new system means that your fare from A to B will now be the same regardless of the path you take and the number of times you transfer. This, in turn, will allow the transit agency to design a simpler and more reliable system.

Note in comments how surprised I was to hear him admit, finally, that transferring does indeed produce significant hassle for riders.

[Scott Wood]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Here's a good resource made by Matthew Roberts, a Leander college student studying in Oregon:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&h...4567,-97.703819&spn=0.2855,0.528374&z=12

It's a 'frequent network' map for Austin. Note that our most frequent non-shuttle routes never get any better than 15 or so. I've let him know that based on other cities it's probably not a good idea to keep the UT shuttles in there (since they don't run on a reliable schedule for anybody but students).

Some of those frequencies look a bit better than reality... He's got 1L, 1M, and 3 each at 15 minutes. The 1L and 1M each run at 22 minute headways (though the combined spine would easily qualify), and the 3 runs at 21 minutes peak and 25 minutes midday. The 100 runs every 40 minutes, not 20, etc. Even with a comparatively loose 20-minute threshold, Austin's non-UT frequent network map would look pretty anemic.

As for the UT routes, keeping them in with a different color seems reasonable. Besides being useful information for people whose activity does follow the UT calendar, the routes could be useful for others, if they're willing to keep up with the calendar and have a backup when they're not running.

I would not, OTOH, put things like the E-Bus on there, or other buses that are frequent only during limited hours. The whole point is to show the routes on which you don't need to be too concerned with the schedule. Part of the definition of what makes a route "frequent" should include the span of hours during which that frequency exists.

[migol24]

I don't know if anyone has ever discussed this.... maybe this is a dumb question and maybe I'm not too informed about the transportation system here in Austin. And I know that Austin probably can't afford this, but what if Austin had a monorail? Would that help the traffic any?

[kingkirbythe....]

Mono what?

[migol24]

Originally Posted by orderlychaos

Mono what?

like the one in seattle, or las vegas.