AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Novacek]

New queue jumper lane for buses from Lavaca to Guadalupe.

In general I'm not a huge fan of losing bike infrastructure, but it probably makes sense in this case (though just losing a few parking spots would be better).

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...emium-referral

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Nice moving the goalposts.

That wasn't what you asked for. You asked "Do bicycles generate tax revenues?" and the answer is assuredly YES.

Is it dedicated, no, but that's simply because bikes don't have the sweetheart deal that cars do, which shortchanges the general fund and then pretends that cars are "self-funding".

Not to mention the long-term cost of bike infrastructure is absolutely minuscule compared to that of automobiles. Nearly zero wear/tear on the pavement and much less square footage of asphalt needed to move equal amounts of people.

[drummer]

A couple days old, but I don't think anyone has posted this one yet:

CAMPO to reassess Lone Star Rail routes after Union Pacific drops out

Elected officials who sit on the policy board for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization are scrutinizing progress made on developing a commuter rail line between San Antonio and Georgetown now that a vital player has dropped out of the project.

http://communityimpact.com/austin/ci...pacific-drops/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by drummer

A couple days old, but I don't think anyone has posted this one yet:



http://communityimpact.com/austin/ci...pacific-drops/

For some updates, CAMPO stayed in the process (for now), but Hays left.

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/03/32911/

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...one-star-rail/

[wwmiv]

Honestly, rail in the I-35 median would just be better anyway, then enter the city via S. Congress in a dedicated lane until you get to wherever they build a new bridge. Like... is this just not fucking obvious to everyone?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Honestly, rail in the I-35 median would just be better anyway, then enter the city via S. Congress in a dedicated lane until you get to wherever they build a new bridge. Like... is this just not fucking obvious to everyone?

One of the advantages of the lone star proposal was getting (most) of the freight rail traffic out of the city.

This has huge advantages both in reducing closures of all those add-grade crossings (which helps traffic), and in emissions improvements (yes, trains are still running somewhere, but it helps in localized emissions and attainment).

That's why the freight relocation fund (sort of) exists, and why that was one of the possible options for some funding.


To clarify, where do you propose running it in the I35 median, and where do you propose running it in South Congress? Grade separated or level grade in mixed traffic?


One (probable) killer to the I35 median option is that they're already planning on using (some? all?) of that for the toll lanes/"future transportation corridor".

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by Novacek

One of the advantages of the lone star proposal was getting (most) of the freight rail traffic out of the city.

This has huge advantages both in reducing closures of all those add-grade crossings (which helps traffic), and in emissions improvements (yes, trains are still running somewhere, but it helps in localized emissions and attainment).

I think 1) removing most or all the at-grade crossings along the existing UP line, 2) making it double-tracked as-needed, and 3) making necessary improvements throughout would make it possible to have a commuter line in an existing corridor. The total cost with stations would be less than the $2B for the original proposal. I really don't think the freight traffic has to be relocated to brand new lines, assuming scheduling is done appropriately.

And the Lone Star district obviously needs better funding authority.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

The total cost with stations would be less than the $2B for the original proposal.

Based on what?

You lose the cheap expense, RoW acquisition out in the boonies.

Keep a big expense, adding a new rail line, except now it has to somehow be built in a very constrained corridor alongside an in-use freight line.

Add a huge expense, RoW acquisition from UP (except they don't even want to work with you).

And add another huge expense, a bunch of new grade separations. Most of which aren't going to be possible without buying out a bunch of property.

Example in point Oltorf and the RR: You're going to need to start elevating way far back to get over the freight traffic. But you also need to maintain local access to ABGB, Thornton Rd, etc.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2459.../data=!3m1!1e3

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Keep a big expense, adding a new rail line, except now it has to somehow be built in a very constrained corridor alongside an in-use freight line.

Add a huge expense, RoW acquisition from UP (except they don't even want to work with you).

I wasn't suggesting creating a totally separate line in the existing corridor. I'm suggesting they share the line, with appropriate scheduling to accommodate both. i.e. UP traffic at night or during certain parts of the day, taking advantage of the new grade-separation. Is that not possible?

Originally Posted by Novacek

And add another huge expense, a bunch of new grade separations. Most of which aren't going to be possible without buying out a bunch of property.

Example in point Oltorf and the RR: You're going to need to start elevating way far back to get over the freight traffic. But you also need to maintain local access to ABGB, Thornton Rd, etc.

Obviously, not every intersection can easily facilitate grade-separation, but not every intersection needs grade separation. You could also depress the lanes in some areas, where appropriate. I'm sure it won't be cheap, but grade-separation would be a good thing to have sooner rather than later since it also improves bike/pedestrian/motor vehicle transit at intersections.

My point is only that the option should be fully explored. At this point, we probably don't have the commuter traffic numbers to fully justify a brand new line and new ROW acquisition. A new line in the boonies for UP can be added if/when the volume picks up and both can't be safely operated on the same line.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

I wasn't suggesting creating a totally separate line in the existing corridor. I'm suggesting they share the line, with appropriate scheduling to accommodate both. i.e. UP traffic at night or during certain parts of the day, taking advantage of the new grade-separation. Is that not possible?

The problem is that UP wants to run more and more freight on the line (that they own).
They're not going to want to half (or more) the time they have available on it.

Grade separation gains UP nothing. They already have priority on all those intersections. It's not a sufficient carrot to get them to give up capacity.

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Obviously, not every intersection can easily facilitate grade-separation, but not every intersection needs grade separation. You could also depress the lanes in some areas, where appropriate. I'm sure it won't be cheap, but grade-separation would be a good thing to have sooner rather than later since it also improves bike/pedestrian/motor vehicle transit at intersections.

Agreed, and to a certain extent it's orthogonal to trying to run commuter rail. It's just that a separate corridor got you most of the benefits of such "for free".

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

My point is only that the option should be fully explored. At this point, we probably don't have the commuter traffic numbers to fully justify a brand new line and new ROW acquisition. A new line in the boonies for UP can be added if/when the volume picks up and both can't be safely operated on the same line.

If it happens, great (and maybe it's one of the 7 or so alternatives they mentioned that they're still exploring).


I just don't see it as something that can be done that incrementally, though. You're not going to be able to justify putting in all those new stations, buying the rolling stock, etc. for one or two runs a day (if you can even buy the timeslots from UP).
One or two runs a day is basically what we already have, it's Amtrak.

I think that's one of the lessons from the Red Line. You need at least some amount of frequency and operation throughout the day, or else people will worry about emergencies and missing their one ride, and won't ever ride it.

[wwmiv]

edit: nevermind

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Honestly, rail in the I-35 median would just be better anyway, then enter the city via S. Congress in a dedicated lane until you get to wherever they build a new bridge. Like... is this just not fucking obvious to everyone?

Reminds me of a plan a friend had started developing a couple years ago. He wants I35 to be depressed and to add subway/train alongside the depressed lanes underground. That would obviously be very expensive, but interesting nonetheless.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Reminds me of a plan a friend had started developing a couple years ago. He wants I35 to be depressed and to add subway/train alongside the depressed lanes underground. That would obviously be very expensive, but interesting nonetheless.

Interesting indeed...and expensive. But, if we offered to pay the construction company in a handful of free shows or something it might work, right? Or we could give all the workers free tickets to the 2017 X-Games at COTA.

[The ATX]

It looks like the first steps (besides planning) may be taking place in the expansion of I-35 through Austin.
They started to do some drilling and surveying on the east side of I-35 between Ben White and Oltorf this week. It appears the light poles could be in the process of being moved further east to accommodate an additional lane(s). The Oltorf, William Cannon and Riverside overpasses were scheduled to be rebuilt this year IIRC before the new lanes could be added. So this could be related to Oltorf bridge reconstruction.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by The ATX

It looks like the first steps (besides planning) may be taking place in the expansion of I-35 through Austin.
They started to do some drilling and surveying on the east side of I-35 between Ben White and Oltorf this week. It appears the light poles could be in the process of being moved further east to accommodate an additional lane(s). The Oltorf, William Cannon and Riverside overpasses were scheduled to be rebuilt this year IIRC before the new lanes could be added. So this could be related to Oltorf bridge reconstruction.

I saw a drilling truck on the southbound side of 35 at the Holly street intersection a couple of weeks back. I was going to mention it but forgot.

I can't remember how long it took to rebuild the Woodward bridge over 35 but I'm assuming it would roughly be about the same time for the reconstruction of the other bridges. Man that's going to be a mess when they start.

[MTM-ATX]

We should seriously consider this as an inexpensive way to serve transit needs in the urban core. Google $ is investing in Skytran so maybe the first route should be from the soon to be Google office tower. Just a thought...

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/23/smal...&iid=obnetwork

[electricron]

Originally Posted by MTM-ATX

We should seriously consider this as an inexpensive way to serve transit needs in the urban core. Google $ is investing in Skytran so maybe the first route should be from the soon to be Google office tower. Just a thought...

One vehicle that can hold four people isn't much better than a horse drawn buggy circulating downtown capacity wise.

Las Colinas in Irving has a small autonomous people mover circulator. It's been around for decades. Have you ridden it?

It's not the technology that attracts riders, it's where the transit system goes.

[nixcity]

Why do transportation budgets have to consistently be road/highway focused? It's as if nobody wants to travel by train, bike, etc both between cities and within cities. We should be re-evaluating where this money goes on a major scale.

Exactly, the same old, same old got us where we are and only promises increased congestion without alternatives. We need to be adamant about not throwing our limited bond capacity at the never ending black whole that continuously wastes our tax dollars.
If they ask for our tax money to expand this thing please encourage all to vote no and if you are not convinced it is a waste of money our DOT's own think tank said we cannot pave our way out of congestion. Please read: http://austinrailnow.com/2016/03/29/...aste-of-money/

[nixcity]

It's not the technology that attracts riders, it's where the transit system goes

Well said (although I would add that it does matter to some extent, ie, many will chose rail over bus), and we can't afford to wait any longer, we know where it will be most successful so lets get to it so we can have a system operational in 5-6 years rather than in a construction quagmire on IH35 that will last for at least a decade.

[LiveattheOasis]

http://austinrailnow.com/2016/03/29/...aste-of-money/

Informative and fact-based article on why expanding I-35 with TXDOT is a disastrous idea.