AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Tech House]

Speaking of connectivity, I'm currently driving for Favor and have become acutely and painfully aware of the absence of east-west routes between Oltorf, Ben White, South Congress, South First, and South Lamar. I know that voices like mine are completely drowned out by the screaming NIMBY hysteria of residents who don't want through-traffic coming past their homes. But maybe someday we'll have leadership in the right places and decisions can be made that are in the best interests of the vast majority, rather than having such a ridiculously irrational system of disconnected spaghetti. This past weekend I made repeated deliveries between areas off of South First and South Lamar, and every trip involved at least 10 minutes of unnecessary driving that is made necessary by the crappy street layout. It's all 78704, so you'd think they would consider how much added CO2 and pollution is going into the atmosphere due to people having to spend so much extra time driving. Isn't it obvious that traffic increases in inverse proportion to connectivity? And then there's the issue of emergency access. It just makes no sense the way it's currently laid out.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Tech House

Speaking of connectivity, I'm currently driving for Favor and have become acutely and painfully aware of the absence of east-west routes between Oltorf, Ben White, South Congress, South First, and South Lamar. I know that voices like mine are completely drowned out by the screaming NIMBY hysteria of residents who don't want through-traffic coming past their homes. But maybe someday we'll have leadership in the right places and decisions can be made that are in the best interests of the vast majority, rather than having such a ridiculously irrational system of disconnected spaghetti. This past weekend I made repeated deliveries between areas off of South First and South Lamar, and every trip involved at least 10 minutes of unnecessary driving that is made necessary by the crappy street layout. It's all 78704, so you'd think they would consider how much added CO2 and pollution is going into the atmosphere due to people having to spend so much extra time driving. Isn't it obvious that traffic increases in inverse proportion to connectivity? And then there's the issue of emergency access. It just makes no sense the way it's currently laid out.

It's not irrational.
It's because of the railroad.

[wwmiv]

There's nowhere to add east-west connectivity south of the river. Sorry. It isn't possible.

[Digatisdi]

Personally I'd like to see railroad underpasses at a few points. I can only imagine the opposition though.

Logistically it feels like W Gibson and W Milton would be the easiest to connect but it'd still be complicated, and I feel like the traffic circle at Bouldin would have to be enlarged into a proper roundabout.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

Personally I'd like to see railroad underpasses at a few points. I can only imagine the opposition though.

I'm not sure if underpasses are possible there, since the RR basically runs along Bouldin Creek.

Edit: Or do you mean run the rail under a road overpass?

[Digatisdi]

Either/or, I'm not particularly invested one way or another. I would like to see a few pedestrian overpasses crossing the railroad at the very least.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

Either/or, I'm not particularly invested one way or another. I would like to see a few pedestrian overpasses crossing the railroad at the very least.

As I said, I'm not sure that running roads under the rail is feasible, given what I assume about the water table/floodplain given the presence there of Bouldin creek.

Running roads over the rail may be possible (I'm not sure what the allowable grade on an overpass is and how far back they'd have to be set). I'm sure it would get pushback from neighbors who would both see the overpass, and would have cars on the overpass seeing into their property.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It's not irrational.
It's because of the railroad.

In what universe do roads never cross tracks? And there have been proposals and plans to extend and connect roadways in the area I'm referring to, which have been shot down by neighborhood opposition.

[Digatisdi]

To be honest I feel like any connectivity improvements I could suggest for '04 would be met with fiery opposition. I'm thinking W Monroe personally. Minimal impact on residential compared to Gibson, I dunno why I didn't mention Monroe that in my earlier post. It's also better connected to the grid—the biggest problem would be the petrol station on Lamar that would need to be creatively worked around.

That being said the pedestrian overpass I'm thinking of would probably go connecting Treadwell to S 6th, preferably coinciding with improvements to the West Bouldin Creek Greenbelt.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Tech House

In what universe do roads never cross tracks? And there have been proposals and plans to extend and connect roadways in the area I'm referring to, which have been shot down by neighborhood opposition.

It's not that they never cross. It's that they cross in limited locations (like the currently limited locations) and that adding new crossings is a bitch.

Especially anything not old and grandfathered.

Especially if you want to make it a quiet crossing, so the train doesn't blow its horn as it's going through (which would be really popular with the neighbors).

Look at the millions it's costing Austin to put in 1 additional _pedestrian_ crossing of that same RR.

Given that, there'd be a big push to make any new crossing grade separated. Your whole point in adding that crossing was to add connectivity and improve traffic, which then goes to crap when a train comes through in the middle of rush hour.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Three quarters of which is north of the river. As well as most of the population. It makes no sense to then put 2/3 of the infrastructure serving that south of the river

To ignore those of us who live south of the river would be a big mistake as well and southern Travis and northern Hays are poised for massive growth over the next 5 years or more.

And the fact that the current conversation has shifted to traffic issues and east/west connectivity here on the southside just shows the need to invest more in relieving traffic congestion south of the river and that should also include a well developed rail network.

The southside shouldn't be shafted in favor of the northside. Last I checked we are Austin citizens and pay city taxes.

[drummer]

Added to JDawgboy's points is the growing connectivity of cities and towns all the way down to San Antonio. While not all of that is specifically a part of Austin, it is a part of the region and should thus be considered in planning. To ignore (or consider lesser) the areas south of the river would be foolish. It may be growing more rapidly to the north, but the south is still a happening place.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by drummer

Added to JDawgboy's points is the growing connectivity of cities and towns all the way down to San Antonio. While not all of that is specifically a part of Austin, it is a part of the region and should thus be considered in planning. To ignore (or consider lesser) the areas south of the river would be foolish. It may be growing more rapidly to the north, but the south is still a happening place.

Don't confuse urban rail, heavy or light, with commuter rail. Lone Star Rail is looking at starting a commuter rail service between San Antonio and Austin. Austin or CapMetroRail is looking at starting urban rail within Austin.

The fool would be someone suggesting having urban rail (with stations from a half mile to two miles apart) all the way to San Antonio from Austin. It's 80 miles between these two cities, a station every mile for urban rail would mean having 81 stations. Double that for having stations every half mile, and half that for having stations every two miles. That's still way too many stations. It'll take several hours, definitely more than two hours and approaching three hours, to travel between these two cities

Most commuter rail systems average 4 to 5 miles between stations. That means between 15 to 20 stations for Lone Star Rail, and most likely at least a two hour run between these two cities.

Elapse travel time is very important data point commuting passengers look at. Commuting passengers usually ride the train 10 times each week, a morning and evening commute 5 days each week. Vacationing passengers may ride the train as little as once or twice each year, or not at all. Commuting passengers are time sensitive for their commutes, anything over an hour ride is frown upon. So minimizing the number of stations on a lengthly rail corridor is important, whereas on a fairly short rail corridor maximizing stations is more appropriate - that is - as long as you can afford to build them.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by electricron

Don't confuse urban rail, heavy or light, with commuter rail. Lone Star Rail is looking at starting a commuter rail service between San Antonio and Austin. Austin or CapMetroRail is looking at starting urban rail within Austin.

The fool would be someone suggesting having urban rail (with stations from a half mile to two miles apart) all the way to San Antonio from Austin. It's 80 miles between these two cities, a station every mile for urban rail would mean having 81 stations. Double that for having stations every half mile, and half that for having stations every two miles. That's still way too many stations. It'll take several hours, definitely more than two hours and approaching three hours, to travel between these two cities

Most commuter rail systems average 4 to 5 miles between stations. That means between 15 to 20 stations for Lone Star Rail, and most likely at least a two hour run between these two cities.

Elapse travel time is very important data point commuting passengers look at. Commuting passengers usually ride the train 10 times each week, a morning and evening commute 5 days each week. Vacationing passengers may ride the train as little as once or twice each year, or not at all. Commuting passengers are time sensitive for their commutes, anything over an hour ride is frown upon. So minimizing the number of stations on a lengthly rail corridor is important, whereas on a fairly short rail corridor maximizing stations is more appropriate - that is - as long as you can afford to build them.

True, I guess I was grouping everything together in my post - I don't mean to do that and I do understand the various modes of rail - but thanks for the catch nonetheless! However, I was stating that mainly as a case against focusing only on North Austin and Williamson County in general, which is not uncommon.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by drummer

True, I guess I was grouping everything together in my post - I don't mean to do that and I do understand the various modes of rail - but thanks for the catch nonetheless! However, I was stating that mainly as a case against focusing only on North Austin and Williamson County in general, which is not uncommon.

I'll agree that too many posters on this thread are overlooking south Austin. But I suppose many of them think Lone Star Rail will provide all the train services needed south of downtown Austin - except servicing ABIA. They also overlook that Lone Star Rail is also planning to head north towards Round Rock and Georgetown. One would think that Lone Star and the existing and future MetroRail lines would accommodate most commuters.

What I believe Austin really needs with the urban rail type trains is a downtown circulator to distribute commuting passengers around a fairly large central Austin (including UT, Capitol, Downtown., and South of the lake). But that's with all the proposed commuter rail lines being built too.

[drummer]

In the future, I think that'd be great. A circulator around campus, West Campus, and East Austin (immediately east of campus, that is) would be helpful. I think a couple of good parallel north-south lines are needed now (these could start north of the river, but could absolutely be extended south as well along Lamar and either South First or South Congress). Lone Star Rail will provide a commuter service much like TRE from Dallas-Fort Worth if it ever actually happens, but I think it'd be great.

It's such a tough sell now to get anything moving into the realm of possibility. Folks in general are sadly either misinformed about the benefits of rail or simply not exposed to it themselves. I don't envy the folks who work to make transportation fixes in Austin or the greater Central Texas region. They have a lot of barriers to get to anything that remotely resembles success.

[Spaceman]

Originally Posted by drummer

In the future, I think that'd be great. A circulator around campus, West Campus, and East Austin (immediately east of campus, that is) would be helpful. I think a couple of good parallel north-south lines are needed now (these could start north of the river, but could absolutely be extended south as well along Lamar and either South First or South Congress). Lone Star Rail will provide a commuter service much like TRE from Dallas-Fort Worth if it ever actually happens, but I think it'd be great.

It's such a tough sell now to get anything moving into the realm of possibility. Folks in general are sadly either misinformed about the benefits of rail or simply not exposed to it themselves. I don't envy the folks who work to make transportation fixes in Austin or the greater Central Texas region. They have a lot of barriers to get to anything that remotely resembles success.

45 extension is a go!!!

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by drummer

It's such a tough sell now to get anything moving into the realm of possibility. Folks in general are sadly either misinformed about the benefits of rail or simply not exposed to it themselves. I don't envy the folks who work to make transportation fixes in Austin or the greater Central Texas region. They have a lot of barriers to get to anything that remotely resembles success.

Not to derail ( ) the conversation, but ^this^ paragraph is applicable to many situations where there is a lot invested in the current way of doing things, and tremendous resistance to change. For example, the 2C of warming to which we're supposedly going to limit our climate --- it's not going to happen, we've got everything invested in a paradigm that involves burning fossil fuels. The momentum is incredibly difficult to change. Austin's transportation problem and the global climate problem are both like the Titanic, we can't maneuver fast enough to avert catastrophe. And in both cases, the cost of doing something OR doing nothing is astronomical --- pick your poison. We can sacrifice now for a more promising future, or we can leave the mess to future generations. Although, in the case of Austin's transportation infrastructure, the suffering is well under way.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

To ignore those of us who live south of the river would be a big mistake as well

Who's saying ignore? Any system definitely should cross the river. That was one of the good points of the last proposal.

But the infrastructure investment should be somewhat proportional to population and need. Again, don't put 2/3 of the infrastructure where a minority (and shrinking) of the population is.

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

and southern Travis and northern Hays are poised for massive growth over the next 5 years or more.

And that massive growth is still _less_ than the growth that the north is experiencing.

Williamson is projected to possibly overtake Travis's population within a few decades. Hays isn't projected anywhere close anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

And the fact that the current conversation has shifted to traffic issues and east/west connectivity here on the southside just shows the need to invest more in relieving traffic congestion south of the river and that should also include a well developed rail network.

Again, no problem including the south in the rail system. Just don't put a disproportionate part of the system there, when the population and need are overwhelmingly to the north.

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

The southside shouldn't be shafted in favor of the northside.

Again, I'm not proposing that.

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Last I checked we are Austin citizens and pay city taxes.

Not all that growth in Hays you were pointing to. There's almost no Austin city limits in Hays. And dripping springs stole much of Austin's ETJ.

If you look at the map of Austin's taxpayers, the majority is north of the river. So any city-developed system _should_ weigh northward (while still serving the south).
Any possible CapMetro developed system would be _even more_ proportionately northward. All of the CapMetro paying suburbs are north (or at least NE like Manor).

[nixcity]

But the infrastructure investment should be somewhat proportional to population and need. Again, don't put 2/3 of the infrastructure where a minority (and shrinking) of the population is.

Again, around 25 stops would be north of the river and around 15 to the south. Don't make stuff up that you know is not true. JDAWG is just pointing out that a plan that does not include the south (and their plan did a good job of that) will miss a lot of important voters on the south side. Full build out has around 2/3 of infrastructure being in the north not the south as you insist.
Also, the WC and PV terminus makes much more sense now that I have seen the huge PUD plan the city has for Pilot Knob.