AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[electricron]

Why do those who advocate monorails always choose to use a photo that show limited structural supports, and never a monorail station?
This is more like what you'll see hanging in the air at the stations.....






Monorails can get real ugly if you include the supports needed to keep the beam and stations in the air in the photo -- they don't float in the air magically. The above photos are far removed from this glamour monorail photo which some professional had taken the time to crop out all the ugly supports.....



Can you imagine several aerial monorail stations every 1/8 to 1/4 mile apart lined up in a row over Congress completely obscuring the view of the Capitol from the downtown riverfront? There would be a public outcry over the blockage of sight lines.


The Las Vegas monorail was hidden behind the casino/hotels parking garages, not in front of the beautiful entrances. The Seattle monorail has just two stations where the line terminates. Close to downtown, the station is built onto a side of a building several stories up. At the Seattle Center the station is built at ground level, not several stories up. In both cases in Seattle efforts were made to reduce the footprint of the monorail stations to bare minimum. The Seattle monorail was built as a technical showpiece for a World's Fair. In Las Vegas, that attempt wasn't even considered, as it was built to move people in a real transit environment.

[Spaceman]

I bought $50,000 in muny bonds to support the Vegas monorail...My broker called me last month and said Vegas had defaulted....May try to re-finance on a later date...Bummer

[migol24]

Originally Posted by electricron

Why do those who advocate monorails always choose to use a photo that show limited structural supports, and never a monorail station?
This is more like what you'll see hanging in the air at the stations.....






Monorails can get real ugly if you include the supports needed to keep the beam and stations in the air in the photo -- they don't float in the air magically. The above photos are far removed from this glamour monorail photo which some professional had taken the time to crop out all the ugly supports.....



Can you imagine several aerial monorail stations every 1/8 to 1/4 mile apart lined up in a row over Congress completely obscuring the view of the Capitol from the downtown riverfront? There would be a public outcry over the blockage of sight lines.


The Las Vegas monorail was hidden behind the casino/hotels parking garages, not in front of the beautiful entrances. The Seattle monorail has just two stations where the line terminates. Close to downtown, the station is built onto a side of a building several stories up. At the Seattle Center the station is built at ground level, not several stories up. In both cases in Seattle efforts were made to reduce the footprint of the monorail stations to bare minimum. The Seattle monorail was built as a technical showpiece for a World's Fair. In Las Vegas, that attempt wasn't even considered, as it was built to move people in a real transit environment.

well it's not like i'm a "monorail advocate" per se.... i was just trying to get what people think about it. positives? negatives? etc? I realize the negatives though i will say that not all those pictures you provided are entirely horrible as you are making them out to be. but I also realize that Austin's street design would probably not be suitable enough to sustain a massive suspension to hold these monorails.

i wonder though, what do you prefer to see in austin's downtown?

from what i've gathered, and i have not bothered to read every single post because it's too time consuming, but it seems that you don't like the idea of a light rail, monorail or any other type of rail system except a commuter rail like the one in dallas. or which is it? in my opinion that one commuter rail is uglier, if not similar, than the monorails that you posted. go figure.

and maybe say we were to install a monorail system in downtown... it doesn't have to pass along congress avenue.... who knows, maybe it might not look entirely terrible.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by migol24

i wonder though, what do you prefer to see in austin's downtown?

Austin needs to get realistic and build what it can afford.
DART collects almost $377 Million a year in sales taxes to support what it does, CapMetro collects $126 Million a year.
Sources:
http://www.dart.org/news/newsrss.asp?ID=901
Dart's projections this year was $387 Million, but are on pace to be $10 Million to $15 Million short.
http://www.capmetro.org/docs/May%202...O%20Report.pdf
CapMetro's figures show monthly collections for just 8 months. Assuming a similar ratio through an entire year; $95 Million x 1.33 = $126 Million

The reason DART can afford to spend more than it collects in sales taxes for a few years on capital projects while CapMetro can't has much to do on how the two transit agencies runs its transit system (bus and rail). Only fare evaders are riding DART buses and trains free, yet 1/3 of all CapMetro riders do so legally. As long as CapMetro wishes to give away free rides to so many passengers, it will never be able to afford to build anything worthwhile. Additionally, of the 2/3 that are paying fares, they are paying the cheapest fares in Texas.

As for what Austin should build downtown, I have always suggested streetcars. Austin doesn't have any corridors through downtown to use except streets. Unlike Dallas, there's no vacant land corridors under transmission lines, nor idle railroad corridors that can be used. If you're going to be using streets for your corridors anyways, you might as well build streetcars.
The problem with streetcars is that they are generally just as slow as all other traffic on the streets, although a few duck-unders or fly-overs at strategic cross-streets can increase the average speeds. Because they are relatively slow, the length of a streetcar line is fairly short. Most planners suggest an hour long or less commute is ideal. Few riders wish a commuter longer than an hour. On a streetcar averaging 10-15 mph, that length of the line should be 10-15 miles at most. 10 miles from Congress and 4th reaches only as far as Palmer to the north, but completely encompasses Austin to the west, south and east. Therefore, a streetcar should suffice to reach downtown Austin from most neighborhoods of Austin today.
But to the north of Palmer reaching Austin's suburbs, a faster means of transport is required to get to downtown Austin, and relatively cheap commuter rail seems to be CapMetro's favorite. Having the railroad corridor already in their possession has been a financial blessing. CapMetro probably saved $100 Million using that corridor than buying a brand new commuter rail corridor. Although the approximately $120 Million spent for commuter rail should not have almost bankrupted CapMetro.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by 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?

Monorail costs almost as much as a subway, and has far less capacity.

[natrius]

Originally Posted by electricron

As for what Austin should build downtown, I have always suggested streetcars. Austin doesn't have any corridors through downtown to use except streets. Unlike Dallas, there's no vacant land corridors under transmission lines, nor idle railroad corridors that can be used. If you're going to be using streets for your corridors anyways, you might as well build streetcars.

You keep making comparisons with Dallas when there are plenty of other cities who have successful transit lines running on their streets with their own dedicated guideway. One of these cities happens to be in Texas as well.

Rail in congested areas without dedicated guideway is a downgrade from buses. It only makes sense if the increase in ridership from the train-factor is significantly more than the wow-this-is-slow-factor, which is only true for short routes. That is, not an hour long.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by natrius

You keep making comparisons with Dallas when there are plenty of other cities who have successful transit lines running on their streets with their own dedicated guideway. One of these cities happens to be in Texas as well.

Rail in congested areas without dedicated guideway is a downgrade from buses. It only makes sense if the increase in ridership from the train-factor is significantly more than the wow-this-is-slow-factor, which is only true for short routes. That is, not an hour long.

What you state is true. Let's review length of rail line vs schedule time to travel as far.....

DART's Red Line to Parker Road from Union Station....
45 minutes over 20 miles including the entire street mall downtown, averaging ~27 mph. If you use the first station in the streetmall, ie Pearl, the time is reduced to 37 minutes, and the distance reduced to 18.5 miles, with an average speed of ~30 mph in a dedicated railroad corridor.

METRO's Red Line to Reliant Park from UH-Downtown.....
28 minutes over 7.5 miles running the entire distance in a dedicated lanes in city streets, averaging ~16 mph.

Sources:
http://www.dart.org/schedules/w600so.htm
http://www.ridemetro.org/SchedulesMa...00-redline.pdf

Make no mistakes about it, as Houston has proved - running light rail in dedicated lanes in city streets will never be "rapid" transit. At an average speed of 16 mph, Houston may have been better off building a streetcar line rather than a light rail line....

I expect to read that not every passenger rides a train all the way, and you'll be correct again. But DART's twice as fast light rail trains because they run in their own railroad corridor are usually full before reaching LBJ heading south during the morning rush hour. So, there are a significant numbers of passengers riding the train all 18.5 to 20 miles.

[natrius]

Houston's line is slower because there are more stops per mile. It's easy to go fast if you don't stop for long stretches like DART does. It has little to do with in-street vs. dedicated right of way. My understanding is that Houston's Red Line rarely stops for lights, so being in the street doesn't make a difference for the train. It just makes a difference for the traffic that has to wait for the trains to pass.

[M1EK]

Keep in mind that electricron thought the Red Line would be a great success.

Houston's line is wildly successful in comparison - as is Dallas'. What we would have built here in 2000 is more like Dallas' than Houston's; what we're going to try to build here with the city's plan will be more like Houston's (if the Red Line doesn't kill it in its cradle).

In no universe will streetcar (usually implying running in shared lanes behind everybody else's cars) be any more of a success than the Red Line.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Houston's line is wildly successful in comparison - as is Dallas'. What we would have built here in 2000 is more like Dallas' than Houston's; what we're going to try to build here with the city's plan will be more like Houston's (if the Red Line doesn't kill it in its cradle).
In no universe will streetcar (usually implying running in shared lanes behind everybody else's cars) be any more of a success than the Red Line.

Houston's line does draw lots of riders. But it only goes 7.5 miles..... Using an hour max commuting preference, the furthest out from downtown it can go is 16 miles......

Portland's 4 mile long streetcar, running in shared traffic lanes, draws 13,000 riders a day... Would you call that successful?

• Video Link

But, I'll admit you're also correct, running light rail trains or streetcars in city streets can be discouraging because so much time is wasted at signal lights. But this video shows best what I've been trying to state all along, that once your trains are in city streets it really doesn't matter that much if you are sharing lanes with other traffic or not.....
• Video Link
Note: This represents what happens in the real world. The light rail trains are just as backed up in their dedicated street lane as the streetcar in the shared traffic lane.

The reality is that there's very little difference in the riders experience between the different train types once you place them in city streets. And I've haven't read one study or suggestion for downtown Austin that doesn't place light rail trains or streetcars in other locations but city streets....

[M1EK]

Your agenda to confuse appears to be still in effect.

Once again, the 2000 LRT plan had high-speed operation in dedicated ROW in the burbs, and medium-speed operation in a median in the close-in urban area, and slow operation in a reserved lane in the street downtown - just like Dallas'.

It was killed by the DMU commuter rail debacle that you thought was so great. It cannot be brought back - we cannot have trains running in reserved guideway on Guadalupe in front of UT because the Red Line killed it, for at least a couple of decades.

The 2008 urban rail plan is currently foundering, but is designed like Houston's plan - running at medium speed in medians on Riverside, then slower in the street downtown. It's nowhere near as good as the 2000 LRT plan would have been, but it's the best we can get thanks to your beloved DMU line.

That plan is in the process of being killed by the Red Line (directly by funding competition; indirectly by poisoning the well for rail among swing voters in Austin).

In Houston, the light rail trains have not been backed up in their lanes. In Dallas, the light rail trains have not been backed up in their lanes. You're engaged in FUD to try to paint LRT as the same thing as shared-lane streetcar (to make DMU commuter rail look better in comparison); but it won't fly.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

In Houston, the light rail trains have not been backed up in their lanes. In Dallas, the light rail trains have not been backed up in their lanes. You're engaged in FUD to try to paint LRT as the same thing as shared-lane streetcar (to make DMU commuter rail look better in comparison); but it won't fly.

But that's not true. In both Dallas and Houston, light rail trains in city streets have backed up because of heavy traffic and traffic accidents. Which is one of the reasons why DART is proposing longer headways between trains (from every 10 minutes to every 15 minutes).

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by electricron

But that's not true. In both Dallas and Houston, light rail trains in city streets have backed up because of heavy traffic and traffic accidents. Which is one of the reasons why DART is proposing longer headways between trains (from every 10 minutes to every 15 minutes).

Source.

Of course traffic accidents can block the guideway - but heavy traffic has not been an issue in any article I've ever seen. DART is reducing headways because of finance issues, not because of traffic - and their long-term plan is still for two downtown in-street guideways.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Spaceman

I bought $50,000 in muny bonds to support the Vegas monorail...My broker called me last month and said Vegas had defaulted....May try to re-finance on a later date...Bummer

What were you thinking?? Or Smoking??

[Spaceman]

At the time it seemed to be a good investment....The bond was bought years back when Vegas was booming...

[austlar1]

I was mostly reacting to the $50K you invested. Were these bonds A rated?

[KevinFromTexas]

Who asked Carol Keeton Strayhorn about Prop 1? She says the bond package for transportation projects won't help transportation. She says it won't do anything for it. I agree that it won't fix traffic problems, but it's a step in the right direction. No one project or even a small number of them are going to magically solve Austin's transportation issues. It's no wonder she's complaining about a project that will finally address pedestrian and bicycle issues in addition to automobile road projects.

[Jdawgboy]

She does not care about the hike and bike trails or bike lanes. She supports nothing but car traffic and that means only concentrate on roads roads roads.

[cvalkan]

From the Statesman

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...t-1001595.html

'High-speed rail in Texas, long left for dead, is likely to regain a pulse today when U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announces a $5.6 million grant to plan a passenger rail line from Oklahoma City to the Rio Grande.'
...
'Passenger rail supporter Peter LeCody , president of Texas Rail Advocates, called the $5.6 million "a good way to start."'
...
'...LeCody ... prefers to think about improving existing Amtrak passenger rail, which travels at speeds under 80 mph in the best of conditions, rather than dreaming of bullet trains. He would be satisfied with improvements that would reduce the current six-hour Austin-to-Dallas trip (which requires going through a rail bottleneck in Fort Worth) to something like three hours.'

As someone who has taken Amtrak from Austin to Dallas and (more often) from Dallas back to Austin, I would like to see that.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by cvalkan

LeCody prefers to think about improving existing Amtrak passenger rail, which travels at speeds under 80 mph in the best of conditions, rather than dreaming of bullet trains. He would be satisfied with improvements that would reduce the current six-hour Austin-to-Dallas trip (which requires going through a rail bottleneck in Fort Worth) to something like three hours.
As someone who has taken Amtrak from Austin to Dallas and (more often) from Dallas back to Austin, I would like to see that.

I would too, but there's no way to drop the time to 3 hours unless one builds a bullet train line. The BNSF and UP will only allow maximum speeds of 90 mph for passenger trains on their corridors. Dallas to Austin, through Fort Worth, is 232 miles according the the Texas Eagle's published timetable, with a 45 minute crew changeover and train maintenance stop in Fort Worth. To get to less than 3 hours total elapse time, the train effectively has just 2 hours and 15 minutes to travel 232 miles.

Just a little math = 232 miles / 2.25 hours = 103.11 mph. Since there are potentially additional stops in Cleburne, McGregor, Temple, and Taylor, the Eagle will have to go faster than 103.11 mph to average this speed. Golly, 103.11 mph is already faster than the 90 mph the BNSF and UP will allow.

Therefore, if you really wish to ride on a train between Dallas and Austin in less than 3 hours, someone will have to build a bullet train corridor and buy bullet trains. It's impossible to do so on the existing BNSF and UP owned corridors.

Oh, lets assume the 45 minute stop in Fort Worth is moved to Dallas instead, allowing the full three hours for traveling 232 miles. More math = 232 miles / 3 hours = 77.33 mph. It will still be tight because of the additional potential stops along the way, a train would have to go 90 mph the entire way, no stopping at passing sidings to let freight trains pass, simply no slowing down for any reasons except at stations, to make it in less than 3 hours. This would also require Amtrak moving its base of operations in North Texas from Fort Worth to Dallas. I just don't think any passenger train being dispatched by the freight railroad companies on freight railroad corridors and tracks, is ever going to be able to go 90 mph over the entire 232 miles. Again, exclusive high speed corridors being dispatched by the bullet train operators will be needed to realistically achieve Dallas to Austin in less than 3 hours.