AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[MightyYoda]

Originally Posted by nixcity

The November election is not too far off and I think we need as much time as possible for advertising and campaigning for urban rail. Transportation is the issue that will make or break us over the coming decade, the mayor was right when he said as much. After trying as much as possible to buy into a line to Highland mall as being better than nothing I just can't. I'm afraid it will preclude any real chance for rail where it is already needed on Guadalupe/Lamar for the foreseeable future.
So what I have come to conclude is that we should start with a shorter line and leave anywhere north of the Capitol for future extensions. This would save money this making it more likely to gain voter approval for the costly tunnel under the river ALL THE WAY to the Capitol. This is the only real answer, sorry Electricon I don't want any ugly above grade through our beautiful downtown. We can use that in other places where appropriate in the future. As for now I see a line from Pleasant Valley or Grove with its on ROW at grade until the river where it goes underground until it reaches the Capitol. This gives us time to choose the best option for north of there and demonstrate the value of going underground and maintaining the capacity of our already choked roadways. We should be taking advantage of the fact it is so easy to tunnel here and maybe by the time this first phase is done there would be enough momentum to continue underground all the way from the Capitol to around 24th and Guadalupe where it could come above ground and stay at grade until it reaches the Crestview stop thus basically getting you to Highland mall anyway and connecting us to the northwest part of the city, Cedar Park and Leander via the red line.

It all starts with going under the river all the way to the Capitol. This would also keep the unsightly above ground cables light rail needs from being there. We have yet to hear much from our resident experts on tunneling under the river. Novacek, SAM, M1ek, what do you all think? This is in essence a permanent decision and we really need to get it right this time!

I agree with you in theory, but I think it's not feasible atm with rapid bus. Urban Rail isn't happening there until rapid bus proves without a doubt to be a failure. Better to get some type of urban rail infrastructure going that can be expanded upon in the future to other areas.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by nixcity

It all starts with going under the river all the way to the Capitol. This would also keep the unsightly above ground cables light rail needs from being there. We have yet to hear much from our resident experts on tunneling under the river. Novacek, SAM, M1ek, what do you all think? This is in essence a permanent decision and we really need to get it right this time!

Running under a river or lake has only been accomplished once for a light rail line in America with overhead cables in Pittsburgh. All other rail tunnels under rivers and lakes in America have been done for commuter rail and heavy rail, usually using a third rail for power. The sole exception not using third rail I'm aware of is NJT's using Amtrak's NEC under the Hudson entrance into Penn Station, although LIRR trains in their tunnel under the East Riveri uses third rail while Amtrak trains uses overhead cables.
Pittsburgh's 1.2 mile North Shore Connector light rail bored tunnels 20 feet below the Algeny River were recently completed, at a total capital cost of 524 million dollars..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Shore_Connector
They successfully received 80% federal funding for this project using the once in a lifetime stimulus funding, but the planning, funding, and construction took 18 years. I repeat, 18 years!
Some math:
1.2 miles x 2 bored tunnels = 2.4 miles of tunnel.
$524,000,000 / 2.4 miles = $218 million per mile of tunnel.

Additionally, there's only a subway station on one end of these tunnels, the station on the opposite side was built at grade because of the resulting lower cost. Pittsburgh didn't have to buy more trains for this expansion, nor did they have to build or expand their train maintenance shop and yard, which Austin would have to do as a new startup line. Their $200+ million per mile was just for the tunnels and tracks.

I would suggest just boring the twin tunnels as proposed from 24th street to Riverside would be at least three times longer, and therefore at least three times more expensive. It'll probably be much higher than $1.5 Billion because there'll probably be many times more subway stations.
FYI, the 26 mile Pittsburgh light rail trains averages 28,000 daily riders with a MSA population of 2,360,733. (22nd) Austin MSA population ranks 35th at 1,716,289

[Digatisdi]

Originally Posted by electricron

FYI, the 26 mile Pittsburgh light rail trains averages 28,000 daily riders with a MSA population of 2,360,733. (22nd) Austin MSA population ranks 35th at 1,716,289

I feel like that's a misleading number to quote, since this line will be within city limits, in some of the most dense parts of the city, and Austin City Proper's population is #11 versus Pittsburg's #61.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

I feel like that's a misleading number to quote, since this line will be within city limits, in some of the most dense parts of the city, and Austin City Proper's population is #11 versus Pittsburg's #61.

But we're also in Texas where most people are married to their cars.

[Digatisdi]

However CapMetro has the highest per capita ridership of any public transit system in Texas-- I think a fully underground system is more than justified.

[427MM]

We all know that while we're kicking 🞵🞵🞵 in a thousand ways as a city, our transportation system is sad. But we can work to change this. If you're on Facebook, 'Like' Austin Gets Around. When you're teaveling, post photos of how you're getting around. Join in on the events and the field trips. Most of all, speak up and be sure to vote!

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

However CapMetro has the highest per capita ridership of any public transit system in Texas-- I think a fully underground system is more than justified.

Huh? That's not an easy data point to find because APTA doesn't track it. For all practical purposes, most of the transit assets are used within the central city, so I'll use the latest city population data instead of using MSA data.

CapMetro reports 110,000 trips daily by bus, 1,600 by commuter rail, for a total of 111,600. Austin population is 842,000. Trip per capita is 13%
DART reports 130,000 trips daily by bus, 98,000 by light rail, and 8,000 by commuter rail, for a total of 236,000. Dallas population 1,241,000. Trip per capita is 19% (10%)*
METRO reports 221,000 trips daily by bus, 38,000 by light rail, for a total of 259,000. Houston population is 2,161,000. Trip per capita is 12%
VIA reports 142,000 trips daily by bus, or a total of 142,000. San Antonio population is 1,070,000. Trip per capita is 13%.

Note: *DART service area is larger than just the city of Dallas, but it certainly doesn't reach into Tarrant and Denton Counties, so using MSA or city data completely skews the math unfairly. To be fair, Dallas represents 8/15 of the DART board because that's its share the population of its member cities, or close to. Therefore, 8/15 of 19% would be 10%, so we'll use that to be fair.

Never-the-less, CapMetro's ridership per capita where transit is available isn't that much higher than other Texas cities to be boasting about it. Certainly not to the point to qualify for exclusive grade separated corridors more so than Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.

[M1EK]

I don't have much time for this forum these days. Key points:

1. If Highland is built, and it's a low-ridership line, no extensions will be affordable. (Operating costs will be too high to allow for maintenance of existing bus service, much less further investments - like how the Red Line led to a bunch of bus service cancellations in the first couple of years).

2. If Highland is built, and by some miracle it's a moderate to high ridership line, Guadalupe/Lamar will never be built. The FTA will not invest money in a line which is about a half-mile away from a line they already invested in.

If you ever want the best line in the city, you need to vote against Highland. And if you believe the vast majority of those with the most experience, and you ever want another line ANYWHERE in the city, you need to vote against Highland.

East Riverside is OK. Not ideal, but OK. A tunnel is really dumb. If these guys are going to advocate breaking the bank with a bunch of tunnels, somebody needs to sack up and tell them to build a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 tunnel under Guadalupe instead of this 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

like how the Red Line led to a bunch of bus service cancellations in the first couple of years).

You keep repeating this lie, even though CapMetro told you it was wrong.

If anything, the Red Line is _preserving_ bus routes. Sure, it costs 9 million per year, but without it CapMetro would probably _still_ be losing a quarter of its sales taxes (~45 Million per year). Even one more year of give-backs has paid for the Red Line (operations, not capital) this whole time.

[nixcity]

A tunnel is really dumb. If these guys are going to advocate breaking the bank with a bunch of tunnels, somebody needs to sack up and tell them to build a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 tunnel under Guadalupe instead of this 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

Why is the tunnel under the river a dumb idea? I think holding off on anything north of the Capitol for now gives us time build a case for tunneling under Guadalupe.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You keep repeating this lie, even though CapMetro told you it was wrong.

http://m1ek.dahmus.org/?p=660

http://m1ek.dahmus.org/?p=659

There were others. For instance, the #1 losing half its frequency, which you spent the better part of a year arguing with me about - and you still haven't admitted I was right about.

Stop carrying Capital Metro's water. It's a bad look for you. Nobody ever said they'd continue to lose 1/4 of their sales taxes if they didn't build the Red Line, but even in the universe where they did, they'd still be running more buses than they are now. The Red Line's construction (and failure to even seek the promised federal funds) practically bankrupted Capital Metro at the time.

And by the way, you guys tolerating this jackass who will flat-out lie to you but get mad at me for pointing it out is why I don't have much time for this forum anymore.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Why is the tunnel under the river a dumb idea? I think holding off on anything north of the Capitol for now gives us time build a case for tunneling under Guadalupe.

It makes the cost of the project astronomical while still going on a bad route. It introduces an incredibly high amount of risk for virtually zero return.

Using the existing bridge on Congress or S1st is cheaper and has far less risk; and doesn't tie us into the Highland route the way the tunnel or even bridge to the east does.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by M1EK

It makes the cost of the project astronomical while still going on a bad route. It introduces an incredibly high amount of risk for virtually zero return.

Using the existing bridge on Congress or S1st is cheaper and has far less risk; and doesn't tie us into the Highland route the way the tunnel or even bridge to the east does.

A few questions for you, knowing how involved you are and the information you have gathered over time.

Who was really driving the "train" (couldn't resist bad pun) when it comes to switching the route to the east and up to Highland?
What made the city change it's direction.? I know my building had already had meetings well over a year ago about the route coming past us on Lavaca. Seems like there was alrady a lot of work done on the Lavaca/Guadalupe corridor. It feels like there is sometihng behind the scenes the general public doesn't know.

Also, What is your take on connecting to the airport? Worthwhile or not?
My personal interest lies in a train to the airport, but I keep getting told that is not "worth it".

Interested in your perspective.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

http://m1ek.dahmus.org/?p=659

They directly responded to your claim, and stated that it wasn't true.
In _2010_

4 years later you're still repeating the claim.

And you're still repeating it without _any_ evidence.

"This one is never going to be nailed down for sure – but here’s a hint as to why they might have done the “save money” part of the implementation plan and apparently deferred the “spend that saved money” part of the plan."

A "hint" that's all, which has been debunked.

Originally Posted by M1EK

For instance, the #1 losing half its frequency, which you spent the better part of a year arguing with me about - and you still haven't admitted I was right about.

Some segments have lost about half the frequency, others (about 50% of the former #1 routes, everything north of NLTC) haven't lost _any_ frequency.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Nobody ever said they'd continue to lose 1/4 of their sales taxes if they didn't build the Red Line,

The give back didn't originally last until 2004. It was later extended to 2004. What also happened in 2004? The Red Line passed. The writing was on the wall.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

They directly responded to your claim, and stated that it wasn't true.
In _2010_

I think you're missing the chronology here.

WRT the #9, they said it wasn't true, and then I made that post showing it was. Fewer service hours by far than originally planned with the 2020 service plan change.

WRT the 98x, they said it wasn't true, and everybody else (including me), called their response laughable. Those buses were cancelled.

The only way one could agree with your characterization is if they uncritically accept everything Cap Metro says.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I think you're missing the chronology here.

WRT the #9, they said it wasn't true, and then I made that post showing it was.

_Nothing_ in your post shows that the Red Line has any connection to those bus route changes.

1)
For one thing, you confuse the per-rider subsidy with the expense of the line. The per-rider subsidy was originally higher than planned because ridership was originally lower. But the total expense (mostly) doesn't change in that circumstance. For purposes of budgeting (as compared to planning), per-rider subsidy is (again mostly) useless. Certainly given the currently lower (in comparison to bus) ridership numbers.

Let's use an example using round numbers.

Let's suppose the line costs $10 Million per year to run. That's the expense (not including any ticket revenues which we'll look at later) which is basically independent of ridership (fuel expenses theoretically _slightly_ increase with full loads vs empty, but we'll ignore that).

And now lets examine some ridership scenarios. 100,000 riders per year, 500,000 riders per year, 1,000,000 riders per year.

100,000 riders per year (~ 300 riders per day, we're ignoring weekday vs. weekend as well):

Gross expense per rider: $100
Subsidy per rider: $95 (we'll simplify and assume they all bought the expensive tickets)
Net total expense for the rail ($10M - $500K): $9.5M

500,000 riders per year:
gross expense per rider: $20
subsidy per rider: $15
net total expense: ($10M - 2.5M): $7.5 M

1,000,000 riders per year:
gross expense per rider: $10
subsidy per rider: $5
net total expense: $5 M

The per-rider subsidy number(for the rail at least, see below) is meaningless in this discussion. The per-rider subsidy can vary _~20X_, and the net impact on the expense is only 2X. This is because the FRR is _always_ fractional.

The net impact on CapMetros budget for that temporary ridership dip(which was far from 10X) was minimal. Certainly not the cause of _4_ bus route cancellations.


2)

http://www.dahmus.org/blogimg/july2010capmetrosubsidy.png

Let's look at this slide of yours in more detail. Not the rail segment, but the bus segment, which you conveniently dismiss.
The per-rider subsidy for bus was over budget by $.14. Doesn't seem like a lot. But let's multiply that out over the ~30 Million bus trips.

_$4.2 Million dollars_
_Way_ more than any budget overrun on the train.

[M1EK]

Not interested in going into this in detail with you as you've shown yourself to be a water-carrier for Capital Metro no matter what. One thing in passing, though; operating subsidies matter a lot when you're talking about its impact on bus service. It may be a small part of the total spending on rail, but it would have gone a long way in keeping some buses running.

And you appear to be implying that operating subsidies somehow don't impact the financial picture. At the beginning, there were 800 boardings/day instead of the budgeted 1600 (I don't remember the actual figure, but let's say it was half, which seems about right). That means you're missing 800 fares a day. If each fare is about $2, that's $1600 per day you're missing, which is not chump change. Likely close to enough to pay for an infrequent and short bus route like the #9 was. A 2002 study that came up quickly in google showed it costing somewhere around $60 per hour - that would give you more than enough.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

And you appear to be implying that operating subsidies somehow don't impact the financial picture. At the beginning, there were 800 boardings/day instead of the budgeted 1600 (I don't remember the actual figure, but let's say it was half, which seems about right). That means you're missing 800 fares a day. If each fare is about $2, that's $1600 per day you're missing, which is not chump change.

It's "chump change" compared to the cost overruns of the _bus_ service, which you completely blew off in your analysis.

$1600 /day * 5 days/week * 52 weeks = $416k

As previously noted, the $.14 operating subsidy overrun on the bus service(which you just blew off as "within 5%") cost them approximately $4 _million_.

Which of those two numbers was more likely to cause financial hardship and lead to service reductions?

Face it, the rail line just isn't big enough (yet) to have a huge impact on the bottom line. Volatility in the price of diesel for the buses probably has a larger effect.

[_Matt]

I'm more interested in these questions than the old arguments. Can you shed some light?

Originally Posted by MichaelB

A few questions for you, knowing how involved you are and the information you have gathered over time.

Who was really driving the "train" (couldn't resist bad pun) when it comes to switching the route to the east and up to Highland?
What made the city change it's direction.? I know my building had already had meetings well over a year ago about the route coming past us on Lavaca. Seems like there was alrady a lot of work done on the Lavaca/Guadalupe corridor. It feels like there is sometihng behind the scenes the general public doesn't know.

Also, What is your take on connecting to the airport? Worthwhile or not?
My personal interest lies in a train to the airport, but I keep getting told that is not "worth it".

Interested in your perspective.