AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

None of the above is particularly urgent with the exception of Mueller which is developing currently and will need to know relatively quickly how dense it can be. That's why I suggest that Mueller should be part of any proposed route, even if that route heads up the Guadalupe corridor (which by all accounts is a dead possibility because of redline/metrorapid one-two punch).

Once again, redline/metrorapid do nothing but _help_ the viability of transit in the Guadalupe corridor. Unfortunately, it's (probably) not enough.

Originally Posted by Komeht

and that since we can't build the system out fully, we should start with the best route first, the one that will command the highest ridership in year 1, not in a theoretical year 20. By building the best route for today first, we have a reasonably good shot at a fully integrated rail system someday down the line. But if the first line lays an egg, good luck with that.

Look, in a perfect world, given sufficient financial resources and a sufficiently positive electorate, Guadalupe would be the way to go (actually, with money as no object, heavy rail subway all the way).
But that's not the way things are. Wishing doesn't change the facts and statistics (many of which I've referenced) that are the present situation.

You (and others) are presenting a false dichotomy. It's not a choice between a good Red River route and a better Guadalupe route. It's a choice between a good Red River route and rail probably not happening ever.

The "best" route is the best route than can get passed. A "best" route that can't get passed is worthless. "Perfect is the enemy of the good".

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Once again, redline/metrorapid do nothing but _help_ the viability of transit in the Guadalupe corridor. Unfortunately, it's (probably) not enough.



Look, in a perfect world, given sufficient financial resources and a sufficiently positive electorate, Guadalupe would be the way to go (actually, with money as no object, heavy rail subway all the way).
But that's not the way things are. Wishing doesn't change the facts and statistics (many of which I've referenced) that are the present situation.

You (and others) are presenting a false dichotomy. It's not a choice between a good Red River route and a better Guadalupe route. It's a choice between a good Red River route and rail probably not happening ever.

The "best" route is the best route than can get passed. A "best" route that can't get passed is worthless. "Perfect is the enemy of the good".

I drove up Red River today as I frequently do when I want to avoid traffic going north or south and was reminded why the east alignment is a bad one - no one is there. Red River is a great street to drive on because it is almost never congested. Contrast with Guadalupe which I actively avoid and only rarely drive on because it is nearly always congested. I don't need surveys or studies to show me ridership on that route will be low for some time because I have two eyes on the front of my skull and a brain by which to process the images.

But if you want, there is plenty of demographic and transit data that will show quite clearly that ridership on this alignment will be vastly lower than ridership along the Guadalupe segment. I'm sure M1ek and others can provide that hard data for you.

If we start with the line that will command a much lower ridership (initially of course - I absolutely believe and acknowledge that given time and the right landuse policies TOD will result and EVENTUALLY will the line on East side can have good ridership) - then the chances of getting additional lines on other corridors becomes increasingly remote.

Also, I find it difficult to believe that passing the proposed alignment, which will have both suburbanites AND transit activists either in luke warm support or actively fighting against it will be more difficult to pass than a Guadalupe alignment that at least would have the transit activists endorsement and support.

Fighting both the transit activists AND the suburbanites means along uphill battle and a very very hard sell to voters.

[wwmiv]

Novacek,

There is a fundamental difference between "the best" and "the best possible". The best is Guadalupe, bar none.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Novacek,

There is a fundamental difference between "the best" and "the best possible". The best is Guadalupe, bar none.

Guadalupe may be the best street for transit ridership, but it's the worse place to place an at grade transit system with two dedicated lanes. It's just not wide enough to even keep two lanes of traffic; one in each direction and two lanes of traffic dedicated for trains. There was a location in the 2000 plan where traffic was reduced to one lane on Guadalupe - it really is that thin! Additionally, the bicyclists expect marked bike lanes on it too. To fit everyone who wants lanes on it, they would have to widen the street, and that will mean tearing down all the shops and clubs on one side, the very shops and clubs that attracts all the traffic in the first place.
Subways cost much too much and aerial guideways are expensive too, but significantly cheaper than tunneling. I don't think an at grade train will ever be built on Guadalupe through "The Drag". There's just too many competing interests on that street for it to happen. I believe an aerial guideway is the solution needed there.

[ivanwolf]

I wonder how the trains on streets will back up regular traffic. I drive Lamar/Guad to work from 183 everyday. The biggest problem is the Red Line train at Airport. That train signal is the worst in the world. A north bound train causes it to go down then up then down again all while the traffic light stays RED. I've timed it just under three (3) min. I could only imagine the slower traffic driving down Guad. in campus as trains are driving next to cars blocking turns and such. If you want a commuter train use MoPac route. People would use that route a lot and its already there. Build a new track for the freight trains.

[Komeht]

An excellent blog post on Urban Rail and lack of data and transparency on what supports the proposed Mueller route.

http://keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/cats-dogs/

I think it's important to be mindful again that if the proposed route is put forward for voters to decide on it is going to be fighting both suburbanites and the anti-transit people, but also a growing list of vocal urban rail proponents.

I am not finding support for the argument that Mueller is the more politically feasible route.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

An excellent blog post on Urban Rail and lack of data and transparency on what supports the proposed Mueller route.

http://keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/cats-dogs/

I think it's important to be mindful again that if the proposed route is put forward for voters to decide on it is going to be fighting both suburbanites and the anti-transit people, but also a growing list of vocal urban rail proponents.

I am not finding support for the argument that Mueller is the more politically feasible route.

There's a lot of bad assumptions in that post.

1. That the council is making decisions based _only_ on this _draft_ 2010 plan that he happens to have access to.
2. That the work to narrow the planning area to this section hasn't been updated since 2004.
3. That the open house workshops were expected to have low-level ridership calculation details. That's absolutely the wrong level of detail for that audience.
4. That there's a lack of transparency in details not being released on something that's still a year and a half out.


I'm tempted to post on that page, but M1EK would probably cuss me out again and call be a stooge.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

but also a growing list of vocal urban rail proponents.

Oh, and I'm not sure I'd call that guy a "vocal urban rail proponent", since he seems to have made a grand total of (1) post on transit.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

There's a lot of bad assumptions in that post.

1. That the council is making decisions based _only_ on this _draft_ 2010 plan that he happens to have access to.
2. That the work to narrow the planning area to this section hasn't been updated since 2004.
3. That the open house workshops were expected to have low-level ridership calculation details. That's absolutely the wrong level of detail for that audience.
4. That there's a lack of transparency in details not being released on something that's still a year and a half out.


I'm tempted to post on that page, but M1EK would probably cuss me out again and call be a stooge.

I really will take issue with this. If the public is going to have any shot an input into the plan then now, not next year, is the time and opportunity to start putting data in front of people and a real opportunity to provide feedback. There have been a number of people now if raise serious questions about the proposed route and not nearly enough information to support it.

if this thing is handed down as fiat with little public input and no say and all it is is one big campaign to get the thing passed (no matter how ill conceived) - then passage seems unlikely.

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by Komeht

I really will take issue with this. If the public is going to have any shot an input into the plan then now, not next year, is the time and opportunity to start putting data in front of people and a real opportunity to provide feedback. There have been a number of people now if raise serious questions about the proposed route and not nearly enough information to support it.

if this thing is handed down as fiat with little public input and no say and all it is is one big campaign to get the thing passed (no matter how ill conceived) - then passage seems unlikely.

If there was only such a structured process to elicit public comments for projects like this...

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

If there was only such a structured process to elicit public comments for projects like this...

Public, and more importantly, knowledgable critics comments will necessarily be limited without the data. If CM has the data that compares a Guadalupe/Lamar route to the proposed route and can show why it will attract more ridership then they should share that data. And if not then they should explain why the route is better despite the data.

That the route was very narrowly rejected well over a decade ago when Austin was only on the cusp of the full-fledged urban renaissance it is experiencing now is not compelling.

As a matter of fact, 2000 could be better viewed as a nartow defeat for the concept of light rail altogether and not the specific route.

In anycase, someone is going to have to make a very compelling case for the proposed route to get my vote. I have yet to hear such a case.

[SecretAgentMan]

Proponents of a Guadalupe/Lamar alignment for urban rail are conflating two separate issues. Urban rail was never intended to replace the 2000 light rail proposal. The line haul characteristics and specific corridors from 2000 are being handled by the red line and rapid bus. Because rapid bus is much less expensive than rail, they are able to expand coverage to North Lamar, Burnet and South Lamar beyond the 2000 proposal.

Urban rail is intended to tie together the other components into a NETWORK, and to hit all of the activity centers that the red line cannot.

Eventually, it could be expanded to cover more of the corridors that rapid bus will cover, but there is not sufficient financial resources in this community (even with federal match) to do that in a first investment.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Proponents of a Guadalupe/Lamar alignment for urban rail are conflating two separate issues. Urban rail was never intended to replace the 2000 light rail proposal. The line haul characteristics and specific corridors from 2000 are being handled by the red line and rapid bus. Because rapid bus is much less expensive than rail, they are able to expand coverage to North Lamar, Burnet and South Lamar beyond the 2000 proposal.

Urban rail is intended to tie together the other components into a NETWORK, and to hit all of the activity centers that the red line cannot.

Eventually, it could be expanded to cover more of the corridors that rapid bus will cover, but there is not sufficient financial resources in this community (even with federal match) to do that in a first investment.

Because of metrorapid.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Because of metrorapid.

_What_ because of metrorapid?

" not sufficient financial resources in this community " because of Metrorapid? False. Metrorapid cost us 10 Million. It's noise in the cost overruns of rail.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

I really will take issue with this. If the public is going to have any shot an input into the plan then now, not next year, is the time and opportunity to start putting data in front of people and a real opportunity to provide feedback. There have been a number of people now if raise serious questions about the proposed route and not nearly enough information to support it.

We've already got all the data we need. 4 Lanes. That's the one datapoint that matters.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

_What_ because of metrorapid?

" not sufficient financial resources in this community " because of Metrorapid? False. Metrorapid cost us 10 Million. It's noise in the cost overruns of rail.

From EVERYTHING i've heard, metrorapid means federal funding for Guadalupe won't be available for some time. They want to get their investment out of it. That means no federal funding for light rail on Guadalupe that means no light rail on guadalupe.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

We've already got all the data we need. 4 Lanes. That's the one datapoint that matters.

Then why the pitch that we can get light rail on Guadalupe sometime in the future? (which every apologist for Mueller says - oh, we'll get Guadalupe eventually, just not now). . .Then why was Guadalupe the proposal in 2000?

That doesn't pass the smell test.

Is it difficult? YES Congestion is the reason you put light rail there. Congestion = high ridership

Are there ways to do it? Absolutely.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

From EVERYTHING i've heard, metrorapid means federal funding for Guadalupe won't be available for some time. They want to get their investment out of it. That means no federal funding for light rail on Guadalupe that means no light rail on guadalupe.

As I linked to before, previous funding used in the corridor is not one of the objective criteria for judging FTA applications.

And then there's the fact that Guadalupe is <25% of the corridors where that money was spent.

Come on, look at this objectively. The federal government is not going to say "oh, were were going to give you half a _Billion_ dollars, but because we gave you 5 million to spend on that corridor _ten years_ ago, no deal".

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Then why the pitch that we can get light rail on Guadalupe sometime in the future? (which every apologist for Mueller says - oh, we'll get Guadalupe eventually, just not now). . .Then why was Guadalupe the proposal in 2000?

That doesn't pass the smell test.

As I have previously explained many times, it's a cost/benefit tradeoff. The cost, losing lanes, is constant. The benefit isn't constant. The benefit of Guadalupe as an expansion to a larger network is greater than the initial benefit. The ridership of Guadalupe (the objective measurement) is higher as part of a system that connects everywhere than on its own.

Originally Posted by Komeht

Are there ways to do it? Absolutely.

Absolutely. Are there ways to do it right now, that are affordable, and which will pass (don't piss off a bunch of people by losing 3/4 of their lanes) probably not.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Because of metrorapid.

What Novacek said.

The local match $ for MetroRapid would buy about 2 blocks of urban rail. Heck, the total cost (including federal match) for 37 miles of MetroRapid wouldn't even buy 1 mile of urban rail.