AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by Novacek

However, I think it definitely casts doubt on those cost estimates and hopes of doing it with no public money.

Agree with you on the costs. Probably not realistic.

Originally Posted by Novacek

hereinaustin, can you link to that map you mentioned? Or is it behind the paywall as well as the article?

Article (behind paywall): http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/loc...ransit-sy/nnKc5/#4f51c63d.3560133.735828

[drummer]

I do like how West Campus is included. Still think this isn't the best option, but I'm no expert.

[nixcity]

Everything within that plan is easily accessed by bike. Thus it does little to nothing to help traffic and even if they tried putting it where it would help traffic it is impossible to move the amount of people to make it worth while. Instead of splitting groups he should put his money and time into something that is already proven on a large scale in the place where Austinites have asked for it for around 2 decades.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by drummer

I do like how West Campus is included. Still think this isn't the best option, but I'm no expert.

Of course, traffic problems need to be addressed in a multi-modal way. I see two benefits of this project:

1) if it happens, we won't be paying for it
2) it uses the UT campus as a test-hub for this type of transportation system: if it works, it can grow to cover other parts of Austin; if not, see the point above.

[smt1]

Originally Posted by drummer

I've always heard it's shifting slightly north and northwest (metro growth, that is). It makes sense that the extreme growth in Hays County will challenge that, but I didn't realize it was making that much of a difference already.

I don't think it's changed the population center any, and probably not even arrested the growth northwards of the MSA. Hays County grew by 4.84% last year, with almost 200k people, while Williamson County grew by 3.83% last year, with almost 500k people.

The northern reaches of the MSA are a quite a bit more dense:
https://www.austinchamber.com/site-selection/img/Map-population.jpg

[drummer]

Thanks for the info, smt1.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Of course, traffic problems need to be addressed in a multi-modal way. I see two benefits of this project:

1) if it happens, we won't be paying for it
2) it uses the UT campus as a test-hub for this type of transportation system: if it works, it can grow to cover other parts of Austin; if not, see the point above.

True, if UT or the rich guy is footing the bill, why not do a test run on campus?

Multi-modal is a need - and something like that can always be connected to a greater city-wide system, even if it ends up being light rail, subway, or something entirely different. The most diverse cities I've been to (transportation-wise) are Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok. Kuala Lumpur has monorail, subway, and a few other things that connect fairly well. Bangkok has subway, elevated rail, water taxis, etc., that are all decently connected as well...kinda makes traveling fun, to me, all while getting me to where I need to go.

[nixcity]

If (and it won't work) it doesn't work then we are Stuck with it forever!!!! There is a reason no city has implemented this, JUST LIKE THE GONDOLA PIPE DREAM! We need to pool our efforts into a proven system!!!

[jtown,man]

In regards to the Red Line:

Last time I used it was in 2014. I lived about 2 miles from the lakeline mall. I worked from home. I used the train probably 10 times. 4 times to just go downtown during the day to hangout. The other times, it was to go out drinking. It was a very pleasant experience, and quite heavily used.

They need to improve wait times and expand weekend times to 2am.

[smt1]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

In regards to the Red Line:

Last time I used it was in 2014. I lived about 2 miles from the lakeline mall. I worked from home. I used the train probably 10 times. 4 times to just go downtown during the day to hangout. The other times, it was to go out drinking. It was a very pleasant experience, and quite heavily used.

They need to improve wait times and expand weekend times to 2am.

With the upcoming 4 new trains, wait time should be cut to 15 mins during peak times (where it is indeed standing room only).

It feels like this project might help CapMetro operate the train longer into most nights, which has historically been prevented by freight traffic:

The board also approved a $2.2 million contract with Stadler Service AG, the manufacturer of its six MetroRail cars (and recipient of a 2014 contract to build four more), to make them more crashworthy. Capital Metro MetroRail director Melvin Clark said the hope is the modifications would persuade federal railroad regulators to relax current rules requiring that freight and passenger trains never be within the 32-mile commuter corridor at the same time. Such a change, depending on the latitude granted, could allow Capital Metro to begin running its trains earlier in the morning or later at night, Clark said.

After the downtown station is rebuilt, it sounds CapMetro it planning to make it more of a transit hub for buses (maybe at the expense of republic square?). Lots of development planned/happening at/near the Saltillo/MLK/Highland TODs, hopefully the rest also receiving some lovin'.

[smt1]

Interesting paper here:
https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default/dis...20for%20Sustainable%20Development%29.pdf

Identifying Transit Deserts in Texas Cities

summary here:
http://www.infrastructureusa.org/identifying-transit-deserts-in-texas-cities/

[nixcity]

Good find, thanks for sharing. This certainly underscores the fact that the 2014 rail initiative was in the wrong place!!! See pages 12 and 13 for reference.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Good find, thanks for sharing. This certainly underscores the fact that the 2014 rail initiative was in the wrong place!!! See pages 12 and 13 for reference.

Crap study.

So the area in Austin that currently has the most transit is a "transit desert"?

They compute one unit-ed number, then subtract a different unit-less number from it, and that's supposed to say something? What was the weighting for each of the 7 different criteria they used to determine "transit supply"?


nixcity, so rail shouldn't run downtown or to UT? That's what it's telling us, since both downtown and UT are listed as having the _least_ transit gap. Obviously it should run from West Campus to the northeast.

And rail should only be designed for the transit dependent, and never try to capture choice riders or commuters?

You realize running rail in west campus wouldn't have done a thing for that "calculation" (wouldn't have improved 6 of the 7 categories)? Might have even made it worse, since it would have reduced bus service and probably increased stop spacing.

[nixcity]

^Idk why you don't spend more time being productive than trying to just contradict everybody. If you have so much free time on your hands and are such an expert put it to good use not these blog discussions with people like me that have no experience in rail planning. All that report showed is that where they wanted to send rail doesn't need it and you catch your choice commuters by continuing up to at least Crestview Station where people could transfer to it rather than having to go all the way east and then loop around. Good rail would carry way more people than what is there now. Maybe you are only familiar with the Red Line, where in that case you are right, bus would have been just as good or better. Now that I am back from vacation I am more busy than ever so won't address each claim you made while I was away but I will speak to our common sense.
I have ridden rail in at least 30 cities in 3 different continents and can tell you that our only density that works is the place that Austinites overwhelmingly vote for when surveyed. Even you said it should be around as effective as their last proposal (although I suspect you know that it would have a considerably higher ridership), so PLEASE put your efforts into making this happen. Engage people in the know that have access to the city rather than an elementary school teacher to help make our city better. I am unable to read articles on the Austin Monitor but it looks like Project Connect is trying to do some work and if the Guadalupe Corridor Study can help UT to TEAR DOWN THAT WALL, then maybe we could free up space to make Guadalupe more feasible rather than running on another street through West Campus which would also work.

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2015/05/website-hack-shines-light-project-connect/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

^Idk why you don't spend more time being productive than trying to just contradict everybody.

You say, when your posting was simply contradicting the 2014 rail route. Irony.

Originally Posted by nixcity

All that report showed is that where they wanted to send rail doesn't need it

It shows nothing of the sort. It's a garbage study.

When your model shows something that contradicts expectations, maybe it's showing something new, or maybe your model is bad, and you need to revisit it. When it shows a "transit desert" where there's a bunch of transit, maybe the model is bad.

Real scientists and planners need to do that. Instead of just publishing, like this grad student did.

1)

This is a bad model. Just look at it critically.

Many of the factors it counted don't actually scale. Once every road in a block group has a bike lane, doubling the number of people doesn't double the demand for bike lanes. Or intersections. Or sidewalks.

So the model actually penalizes density. The exact opposite of what you'd want.

It only looked at stops within the block group. Stops on the east side of Guadalupe? Don't count for west campus, they're outside the block.

So it doesn't count stops/routes/frequency that are accessible but outside the block. Something that happens more and more as density increases and the block size decreases.

Again, the model penalizes density. Even if it's actually well served with transit.


2)
Real planners don't just look at where transit dependent populations are. They also look at where they're going. And how.

Why would you send rail north/south along Guadalupe so those students can go east/west to campus?

Why would you put in a rail system to capture trips that are already captured by biking and walking?

[Novacek]

CapMetro's proposed 2016 budget is up.

http://www.capmetro.org/transparency/

http://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/Ca...nance_and_Audit/Proposed%20FY%202016.pdf


Since unlike some, I am actually unbiased, I'll mention that per-mile costs for the red line are taking a big jump. They don't really draw attention to it, or why, but if you look all the way at the end at page 372 (B-13), they mention:

"Federal Railroad Administration contemplating requirement of two‐
person crews
– Anticipated in 2016 budget and throughout forecast period"

I dug up a story on this:

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/propose...ew-rule-rattles-passenger-rail-advocates


Seems like the feds, in their infinite wisdom and with no study or science, are about to double costs for every single commuter railroad.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by nixcity

If (and it won't work) it doesn't work then we are Stuck with it forever!!!! There is a reason no city has implemented this, JUST LIKE THE GONDOLA PIPE DREAM! We need to pool our efforts into a proven system!!!

I'm now leaning toward agreeing that it wouldn't work. For one thing, taking a roundabout route to get from point A to B, at what would likely be a very low speed, makes it scarcely worth the bother when you can just walk those distances. And with an elevated system that isn't integrated into buildings (such as with Seattle's monorail where you enter and exit within structures rather than isolated stairs and/or elevators), there is an added time and hassle factor just to get up to the spot where you wait for a vehicle. And at UT, the time between classes is mainly when it would be used, when there is a rush of people moving from one place to another during a brief interval.

However, to your point about being stuck with it, perhaps if it were simply converted to an elevated hike-and-bike trail it could be kinda nifty. I've always wished I had a spare billion to install an elevated bike network all around Austin, complete with ample shade, planters, and lots of access points both from the ground as well as directly from buildings. And just think of the opportunities for Austin's surplus of drunks to litter and throw their beer bottles at cars. It would also provide ample additional space for "urban outdoorsmen" (a PC euphemism for "homeless" that I've seen used by some activists) to sleep, urinate, defecate, etc.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by nixcity

if the Guadalupe Corridor Study can help UT to TEAR DOWN THAT WALL, then maybe we could free up space to make Guadalupe more feasible rather than running on another street through West Campus which would also work.

To what does "tear down that wall" refer? I'm only aware of that in reference to I-35. Is there a proposal to widen Guadalupe on the east side?

Originally Posted by Novacek

"Federal Railroad Administration contemplating requirement of two‐
person crews
– Anticipated in 2016 budget and throughout forecast period"

I dug up a story on this:

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/propose...ew-rule-rattles-passenger-rail-advocates


Seems like the feds, in their infinite wisdom and with no study or science, are about to double costs for every single commuter railroad.

First, thanks for linking to Next City, because I didn't even know that site existed but am glad to have learned about it.

Second, I didn't take from that article that the feds "are about to" do anything, it only says they're discussing it. And it's not at all clear that such a rule, even if it were to be implemented, would apply to tiny systems such as Austin's red line. Yeah, it's annoying as hell to think that the feds might impose a rule that causes far more harm than good, but I think you're jumping to negative conclusions. Although when it comes to bureaucrats and their insatiable appetite for eliminating all possible sources of risk via needlessly cumbersome processes and regulations, perhaps your pessimism is warranted. I hope not.

Originally Posted by Novacek

This is a bad model. Just look at it critically.

Agreed, that study is ridiculous. I went to the page, jumped to the list of the biggest transportation deserts in Texas and as soon as I saw 3 West Campus locations I immediately knew it was a crock of shit. The entire model makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying that Saudi Arabia is a sunscreen desert --- based solely on the fact that there are a lot of people living in a place where the UV index is perpetually high. No accounting for lifestyle, culture, how people dress, whether they're indoors or out most of the time, etc. This transit study does the same thing, it makes the crude assumption that transit provisions are needed most where the greatest number of non-drivers live, without considering where those non-drivers are going and how they currently get there.

Seems to me that simply looking at where/when the buses and trains are full is the best way to determine where/when there's a need for more of them. Am I being naive? Aside from that, the other main issue is getting people to use transit instead of cars, and that demand can be somewhat predicted by looking at current traffic patterns.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Tech House

First, thanks for linking to Next City, because I didn't even know that site existed but am glad to have learned about it.

I haven't seen it before (just what I googled from CapMetro's statement) so I don't know how reliable it is, but I'm assuming the direct FRA statements are reliable.

Originally Posted by Tech House

Second, I didn't take from that article that the feds "are about to" do anything, it only says they're discussing it. And it's not at all clear that such a rule, even if it were to be implemented, would apply to tiny systems such as Austin's red line. Yeah, it's annoying as hell to think that the feds might impose a rule that causes far more harm than good, but I think you're jumping to negative conclusions. Although when it comes to bureaucrats and their insatiable appetite for eliminating all possible sources of risk via needlessly cumbersome processes and regulations, perhaps your pessimism is warranted. I hope not.

It sounds like it's at least far enough along that CapMetro has to budget for it (at least, that's what I'm reading into from that document). If not, then great (and hopefully that frees up budget for more productive uses).

We should be going the other way. Automating as much as possible to eventually eliminate the need for the driver.

[atxsnail]

Pg 162 of the CapMetro budget doc, in the Commuter Rail FY 2015 Accomplishments section has the line:

"Served as member of the Federal Railroad Administration’s Rail Safety Advisory Working Group on Minimum Crew Size."

Seems like they probably have a good grasp of what's going on (or about to) if they were involved in this