AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

The metro rail effectively has one use case: Live by the Leander or perhaps Lakeline station, work downtown. Interestingly, after the MOPAC construction finally finished a lot of my co-workers who fit that use case actually switched to the 985 bus, because it drops off in a more convenient location on the west side of downtown and is just as fast as the train, thanks to the toll lane.

IMO it demonstrates that while rail is nice in various ways, dedicated ROW is the real killer feature. Please get the 2020 transit package passed, Austinites...

Actually add Crestview and MLK to rapidly developing TOD nodes; Kramer (or whatever multi station combo we end up with at the Domain) is poised to pop too. From that standpoint — as a development accelerator — the Red Line’s been pretty successful. Almost every problem with the line can be chalked up to chronic undercapacity/underdevelopment/underfunding.

But I agree that we can’t get ROWs nailed down soon enough.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by austlar1

It would be, if the Metro rail system carried a significant number of passengers. Probable there are multiple bus lines running on nearby Congress that carry as many or more daily passengers.

I don't see how the current ridership numbers make any difference. I've never decided whether or not to take a bus or train based upon the number of people that currently use them.

Also, one might argue that there would be more riders if there were more office buildings near the downtown station.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by We vs us

It's actually striking how much thought went in to other stations and their ability to generate TOD . . . while the downtown terminus is literally stranded in amongst the convention center, a park, a parking garage and an empty lot, and a cluster of hotels. Like, THE WORST placement you can think of to serve commuters.

Remind me again why they weren't able to push down 4th to Republic Park?

Exactly. Why the hell didn't they continue the rail line westward with a second downtown station at Republic Square? Why have the powers that be NEVER brought that up as a possibility?

They could have even figured out a third stop in/near the Seaholm-Lamar area. Now, it's probably too late to do that after all of the new development on the west side of downtown.

I'd bet more people would take the rail line if it didn't just go to the edge of downtown. As it is, if your destination isn't within walking distance, you have to get off and use another method of transport to get where you are going. That doesn't sound like much, but it's enough to deter people. Especially if they are public transportation newbies.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Exactly. Why the hell didn't they continue the rail line westward with a second downtown station at Republic Square? Why have the powers that be NEVER brought that up as a possibility?

They could have even figured out a third stop in/near the Seaholm-Lamar area. Now, it's probably too late to do that after all of the new development on the west side of downtown.

I'd bet more people would take the rail line if it didn't just go to the edge of downtown. As it is, if your destination isn't within walking distance, you have to get off and use another method of transport to get where you are going. That doesn't sound like much, but it's enough to deter people. Especially if they are public transportation newbies.

And just as a PS -- the current situation with the DT station is going to get even worse with its redesign. It's going to be TUCKED IN BETWEEN THE CC AND HILTON -- and physically kept from moving down 4th to Guad by a NEW PARK that will be built on front of it. GAH.

[freerover]

Extending the red line has been talked about but it would cost a lot and take out a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 ton of parking spaces and cost a lot in lost annual revenue. It’s probably over 100 spaces on both sides of the road for 6 blocks to fit dual tracks.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by freerover

Extending the red line has been talked about but it would cost a lot and take out a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 ton of parking spaces and cost a lot in lost annual revenue. It’s probably over 100 spaces on both sides of the road for 6 blocks to fit dual tracks.

I didn't realize that it's been talked about. I've never seen any mention of it anywhere.

At any rate, if it leads to higher ridership, that would defray some (maybe all?) of the lost parking revenue. There would also likely be other intangible gains realized by having more public transit users. I'm not sure how an in depth cost analysis would or did go, but the improvement is probably worth it.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by paul78701

I didn't realize that it's been talked about. I've never seen any mention of it anywhere.

At any rate, if it leads to higher ridership, that would defray some (maybe all?) of the lost parking revenue. There would also likely be other intangible gains realized by having more public transit users. I'm not sure how an in depth cost analysis would or did go, but the improvement is probably worth it.

As a former New Yorker.... 6 blocks? Come on now. No one isnt taking public transit over a ~5 minute walk.

[H2O]

It has been talked about a lot over the years. Cap Metro has pushed for it, the City (who own the ROW) have resisted. The biggest hurdle is that the train cars aren't really designed for street operation. They are designed to operate on shared freight tracks, but also don't do that well. They don't meet FRA crash worthiness, so they are required to separate by time, which has a schedule impact on the service. FRA had been requiring the train cars to be retrofitted to make them more crash worthy, which would make them less road worthy. However, FRA recently changed their regulations on crash worthiness when using positive train control. I don't know what impact that may have in the future of the red line.

The red line is able to operate the couple blocks on 4th Street because the tracks already existed and were operable up to that point when the service launched. The tracks used to extend all the way to Seaholm. but were not serviceable beyond Trinity when the service was launched. Most of the tracks no longer exist as the streets have been reconstructed over the years.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

As a former New Yorker.... 6 blocks? Come on now. No one isnt taking public transit over a ~5 minute walk.

It depends on where your final destination is. It can certainly end up being more than a five minute walk. If it's even further west for example, it ends up being a bit of a haul. Especially in August. Most people aren't willing to walk a dozen blocks (or whatever) when it's 100 degrees.

In general, I hear ya, but this isn't NYC.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by H2O

It has been talked about a lot over the years. Cap Metro has pushed for it, the City (who own the ROW) have resisted. The biggest hurdle is that the train cars aren't really designed for street operation. They are designed to operate on shared freight tracks, but also don't do that well. They don't meet FRA crash worthiness, so they are required to separate by time, which has a schedule impact on the service. FRA had been requiring the train cars to be retrofitted to make them more crash worthy, which would make them less road worthy. However, FRA recently changed their regulations on crash worthiness when using positive train control. I don't know what impact that may have in the future of the red line.

The red line is able to operate the couple blocks on 4th Street because the tracks already existed and were operable up to that point when the service launched. The tracks used to extend all the way to Seaholm. but were not serviceable beyond Trinity when the service was launched. Most of the tracks no longer exist as the streets have been reconstructed over the years.

That's informative. This type of detail doesn't generally make it's way into the news stories on transit.

[KevinFromTexas]

The Hilton skybridge opened november 27.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2018/12/04/downtown-hilton-hotel-opens-skybridge-to.html

[the Genral]

Its pretty confusing to look at, but interesting. I have a 5 BR house in Round Rock, the math says that bridge cost as much as 26.2 houses like mine...in my neck of the woods. Just trying to wrap my brain around spending that kind of money on a short walkway bridge, a narrow one at that. But it is nice to see some people don't mind spending money to put up a quality result unlike others downtown.

[427MM]

Have you voted!? If you live in Austin in districts 1, 3 or 8 your district is in a runoff. If you care about housing, transit, sustainability and the like I hope you will run, not walk, and vote for Natasha in D1, Pio in D3 and Paige in D8.

Remember who always votes--NIMBYs.

[GoldenBoot]

^^^^^This^^^^^


Please Vote!!!

[Jdawgboy]

I'm not really fond of the paint scheme of the Hilton Hotel. It's not the colors but the way they are painting the tower. The building looks really stubby. It gives the impression that there are less floors with giant windows.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I'm not really fond of the paint scheme of the Hilton Hotel. It's not the colors but the way they are painting the tower. The building looks really stubby. It gives the impression that there are less floors with giant windows.

Really? I think it's so much better than the two-tone adobe color it was before. I especially like the long black strip on the west face of the building with the new "Hilton" lettering at the top. So much more modern than the 2006-fest it was before.

Though TBH there's only so much you can do -- the 2006 still shines through.

One of my colleagues affectionately calls it Hilton General Hospital.

[lzppjb]

I like it, too. Similar to the Line Hotel's theme.

[Jdawgboy]

I like the colors, but it looks like a bunch of floors have vanished since 2 rows of windows now look like 1 row. It makes the building look shorter than it really is. I'll need to take some pictures of it from I-35.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I like the colors, but it looks like a bunch of floors have vanished since 2 rows of windows now look like 1 row. It makes the building look shorter than it really is. I'll need to take some pictures of it from I-35.

Built in the days of the 200ft plateau.

[resansom]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I like the colors, but it looks like a bunch of floors have vanished since 2 rows of windows now look like 1 row. It makes the building look shorter than it really is. I'll need to take some pictures of it from I-35.

Agreed - I like the colors, but they could have had a bit more fun with the way they changed the appearance. Maybe something similar to this:



They recently did something similar to a mid-height building in Torrance, CA. I'll see if I can find any images, for comparison.