AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[nixcity]

We voted for it in 2004.

[nixcity]

Ignorance of some, 16,000 was theirnumber, at that rate the subsidies would have been even higher than building roads. We are about to hit 1 million people, that ridership number is unacceptable, we can do much, MUCH, better. Like more than double. There are a lot of needs our city needs to address right now, we can't afford to do anything but the best (at least in terms of location, underground would be my preferred option of course) when we are talking about such a large bond.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by _Matt

TOD is a proven way of addressing housing demand without relying on driving infrastructure. The FTA provides transportation grants because of how effective it is.

This is true, and a statement I can agree with. However, if this is the goal and benefit is addressing housing demand (a valid one) rather than existing traffic, then it needs to be sold that way -- especially if you are looking to fund it with voter approved bonds.

Otherwise, it seems to make more sense to create a taxing district on the land along the future line. You would be making a lot of privately owned land very valuable, and providing an effective subsidy for developers to make money on TOD projects. It's fine that the FTA provides grants for this, and I'd have no problem with the city kicking in some money for affordable housing incentives... but footing the bill for such a line with bonds is a very tough sell to voters.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

We voted for it in 2004.

But it didn't start running until 2010. Of course you're not going to get Transit oriented development until you have actual transit running.

The fact that those developments came up as soon as they did (5 years is soon in development terms) is evidence that the red line was (a) significant factor. Especially since the first couple of years was really still post-recessional (which slowed down loans and funding for many projects).

Infill is going to happen regardless of course, but the type of infill is going to vary. An important factor you must remember is those NIMBY neighborhood groups. Take Crestview for example, I have serious doubts the infill development there would have had what density it ended up with, absent the red line. As the contrary example, take the Shoal Creek Grove development, where the neighborhood group is fighting anything denser than their existing neighborhood (probably less, since they want about half the private land to be made into parkland).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by drummer

What is lacking is a full, city-wide plan (network), showing how Urban Rail and MetroRail sync up - even connect it to BRT and other bus lines. When people see the big picture, they may be more supportive...rather than slapping stuff together piecemeal and not truly having a concept of how it's supposed to work in the long run. What I've seen thus far has lacked future, long-range plans...but that doesn't mean we should throw everything out. With that method nothing will ever be accomplished.

But they did have that plan, and showed the connectivity. They showed potential expansions from the existing starter line (including a possible spur up G/L). The starter line synced up with metrorail in two places, and their ridership estimates showed exactly how many transfer riders they expected.

Of course, when they tried to really advertise that, the anti-rail group claimed it was "deceptive and confusing for the voters" to show them anything but exactly what they were voting for at that precise moment.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Ignorance of some, 16,000 was theirnumber, at that rate the subsidies would have been even higher than building roads.

Not really. Do you know how expensive roads are (especially new roads in the urban core, if there's even room at all)? And how little ridership they actually have?

The new Mopac lanes are estimated at something like 1600 vehicles per hour.

Over a few hours of rush hour, the rail would have moved more than that. And it would have been supportive of density, rather than sprawl. And it would have contributed to cleaner air, instead of more emissions (Austin is barely at ozone attainment).


We're going to get those mopac lanes (eventually). And we're going to get two lanes on I35. Once that happens, that's it. There's no more room. "building roads" ceases to be an option.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Not really. Do you know how expensive roads are (especially new roads in the urban core, if there's even room at all)? And how little ridership they actually have?
The new Mopac lanes are estimated at something like 1600 vehicles per hour.
Over a few hours of rush hour, the rail would have moved more than that.

At 1600 vehicles per hour, that's a vehicle every 2.25 seconds past a point.
Math: 3600 / 1600 = 2.25
That vehicles can have more than one passenger, although I will admit most don't.

CapMero's Stadler GTWs can carry more than the number of seats available, and each train can have more than one vehicle, but today they operate with just one. They also are limited today to just two trains per hour per direction. There's around 100 seats per vehicle (train) in today, so in an hour the seat capacity is around 200 per hour. So an additional highway lane carrys 8 times more capacity - as the trains are operated today.

Don't get me wrong, train capacity can double simply with longer trains, train capacity can be quadruple by double tracking, and there are other ways train capacity can be increased - like removing seats. Therefore rail can have more capacity than highway lanes, but not how the rail has been implemented so far.

The biggest advantage of public transit over private vehicles in urban environments is where to park the vehicles when they are idle. Transit vehicles are in operation most of the time, private vehicles are idle most of the time. You don't need to park transit vehicles downtown, at the university, at the state house, or at other destinations. Transit vehicles can be parked in a remote area far removed from any destination. That's not true with private vehicles. That's why urban planners like transit, trains and buses.

But the idea that transit always carry more people isn't as truthful as they suggest, it can be but isn't always built to be.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

At 1600 vehicles per hour, that's a vehicle every 2.25 seconds past a point.
Math: 3600 / 1600 = 2.25
That vehicles can have more than one passenger, although I will admit most don't.

CapMero's Stadler GTWs can carry more than the number of seats available, and each train can have more than one vehicle, but today they operate with just one. They also are limited today to just two trains per hour per direction. There's around 100 seats per vehicle (train) in today, so in an hour the seat capacity is around 200 per hour. So an additional highway lane carrys 8 times more capacity - as the trains are operated today.

Don't get me wrong, train capacity can double simply with longer trains, train capacity can be quadruple by double tracking, and there are other ways train capacity can be increased - like removing seats. Therefore rail can have more capacity than highway lanes, but not how the rail has been implemented so far.

The biggest advantage of public transit over private vehicles in urban environments is where to park the vehicles when they are idle. Transit vehicles are in operation most of the time, private vehicles are idle most of the time. You don't need to park transit vehicles downtown, at the university, at the state house, or at other destinations. Transit vehicles can be parked in a remote area far removed from any destination. That's not true with private vehicles. That's why urban planners like transit, trains and buses.

But the idea that transit always carry more people isn't as truthful as they suggest, it can be but isn't always built to be.

All of that is true, though the subject under discussion was the (failed) urban rail plan, which had planned frequencies of (I think)every 10 minutes.

But as I said, whatever rail frequency or system you're talking about, its capacity is higher than the additional roads that simply can't be built, as we're out of room.

[nixcity]

The problem is the new roads are being built in the burbs.....And again, why settle for anything than the top line in terms of ridership??

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

And again, why settle for anything than the top line in terms of ridership??

1) We have no evidence we were. There hasn't been a reliable updated analysis of the ridership of the G/L route (which I'm assuming is what you were referring to) that takes into account all the changes in the subsequent 20 years.
Population loss in the suburbs along Lamar, UNO moving students to west campus where they can walk/bike instead of taking transit, etc.

2) The first year ridership is basically meaningless. We're talking about siting a rail line that (hopefully) is then in place for 50-100 years. The long-term ridership is what matters.

3) A slightly less top of line ridership line which actually gets built is better than the "top line" theoretical line which is either politically impossible or financially unfeasible (what if your "more than double" line costs double as well?).

Personally, I also would have been happy with a G/L line as well. It's actually closer to me (though I wouldn't have been a frequent rider of either). But a Highland line "now" sure as hell would have been better than getting a G/L line 20 years from now.

[_Matt]

Originally Posted by hookem

This is true, and a statement I can agree with. However, if this is the goal and benefit is addressing housing demand (a valid one) rather than existing traffic, then it needs to be sold that way -- especially if you are looking to fund it with voter approved bonds.

Otherwise, it seems to make more sense to create a taxing district on the land along the future line. You would be making a lot of privately owned land very valuable, and providing an effective subsidy for developers to make money on TOD projects. It's fine that the FTA provides grants for this, and I'd have no problem with the city kicking in some money for affordable housing incentives... but footing the bill for such a line with bonds is a very tough sell to voters.

The tax district is an interesting point and one that I would agree with.

Would the tax district you mentioned be different than Tax Incremental Financing or is it an additional tax, on top of addition to existing property tax? (Here's a good presentation on TIF in Austin which mentions they considered it for Urban rail, slide 12).

[nixcity]

Most estimates of a G/L line I have seen (for 2014-2015) have it being from 30,000-50,000. The 2000 plan that failed was projected at around 60,000. Either way, it is more than DOUBLE of what the voters shot down last year.
A TIF is a great way to take burden off of the tax payers. I wonder if it is still on the table as a financing option. There are still a lot of people/groups working on getting rail in Austin, it should not take too long if we keep pushing, and with the new corridor study that just got underway there is some hope of them finding the route Austinites have been asking for.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Most estimates of a G/L line I have seen (for 2014-2015) have it being from 30,000-50,000. The 2000 plan that failed was projected at around 60,000.

No, it wasn't. The 2000 plan had a projected ridership, after 18 years of running of 37k.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304_2915.html

And that was for a 15 mile line.

Only 17k were new riders (the others were just existing bus riders).

Originally Posted by nixcity

A TIF is a great way to take burden off of the tax payers. I wonder if it is still on the table as a financing option.

TIF was one of the funding options for the 2014 plan for operating funds.

But you can't TIF for construction funds, since there's "no" additional taxes until it's actually up and running. Edit: more specifically, TIF could pay back bonds, but you're _still_ issuing bonds.

[urbancore]

I predict rail will be dead in 30 years. Fleets of autonomous cars will rule the roads. We will subscribe to our transportation provider of choice (Google, Uber, Apple, Tesla- who I understand are currently working in conjunction with auto makers to design fleets of cheap "auto cars") fixed rail does not make sense when you can pull an app on your phone and have a car pick you up in 3 minutes. No insurance, no gas bill, no car payments, no commute to a train terminal, no increased taxes. the list goes on and on.

The transportation world is about to completely change.....quick talking about 19th century options and start looking towards the future.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

I predict rail will be dead in 30 years. Fleets of autonomous cars will rule the roads. We will subscribe to our transportation provider of choice (Google, Uber, Apple, Tesla- who I understand are currently working in conjunction with auto makers to design fleets of cheap "auto cars") fixed rail does not make sense when you can pull an app on your phone and have a car pick you up in 3 minutes. No insurance, no gas bill, no car payments, no commute to a train terminal, no increased taxes. the list goes on and on.

The transportation world is about to completely change.....quick talking about 19th century options and start looking towards the future.

Autonomous cars don't change physics. They don't (especially in the short term) add capacity to roadways that are RoW constrained.

They aren't a solution for commuting. They replace taxis/uber, not transit or commuter cars.

What happens when every _single person downtown_ pulls up your app at 5 PM on the dot and expects a car "in 3 minutes".

[nixcity]

^Yeah, I don't think autonomous cars will be a fix all.....
51,000 was CapMetro's projected ridership of phase 1 for the 2000 bond.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

51,000 was CapMetro's projected ridership of phase 1 for the 2000 bond.

What's your source for that, since CapMetro told the FTA it was 37k?

[nixcity]

http://www.capmetro.org/future/NewStarts.htm
Hope this link works for you, the 51,000 is for the full 20 mile phase 1.....but even the 37,000 is waaaaay better than 16,000, especially when tax payer money is at stake.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

http://www.capmetro.org/future/NewStarts.htm
Hope this link works for you, the 51,000 is for the full 20 mile phase 1.....but even the 37,000 is waaaaay better than 16,000, especially when tax payer money is at stake.

Not linking for me, no.

So in other words, it was the full 20 miles(after later expansions), not the 15 miles from the 2000 vote (which wasn't a bond vote).

And again, that's 37k after almost 20 years of ridership growth and additional ToD. For a 15 mile route.

vs.

18k (not 16k) after (I think) 7 years. For a 10 mile route.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Once you compare apples to apples, the numbers are pretty close.

[Digatisdi]

Apparently there's something in West Lake Hills at the Westlake High School PAC about road projects on October 13 at 6 pm.

I'm assuming it has to do with upgrades to Bee Cave Road, but I've also heard rumours of a proposed roundabout at the Redbud/Westlake Drive intersection, which frankly I would love because what exists now is just a vortex of stupidity. I'd rather a glancing blow to my car than the constant risk of getting T-boned.

If anybody can or wants to go, I'd be interested in hearing about it. I would go but I'll be in Saskatchewan.