AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[sammyk]

Originally Posted by freerover

I don't think battery powered trains are possible. This is what a 3rd rail option would look like. Very clean but expensive.

Definitely possible. Look up BEMU.

[atxsnail]

I'm listening to the first Zoom town hall for Project Connect (PC) featuring CMs Casar, Pool, and Kitchen.

I've heard Pool speak in vague and general terms about supporting transit but this was the first time I've heard her speak specifically and positively about the plan. She wants to stay the course on PC even during this crisis. She even allowed positive words about the McKalla place red line station to leave her face without grimacing. My recollection on the 2014 plan was that she opposed it - I don't remember if she had a specific reason for her opposition.

I think her support for a bond/tax election is going to be a pretty good indicator of how the ANC/Nimby types will vote. While development attitudes aren't cleanly partisan, transit attitudes usually are. The ANC/Nimby types claim to be progressives but aren't reliable votes in favor of transit. I think this is especially true when it could mean losing road lanes or having visible/conspicuous transit infrastructure as may be the case with PC. Most of these people would be the first votes to peel away due to worries about increased property taxes. That Pool wasn't more guarded in her language is a good sign.

Casar spoke excitedly about this project as you might have expected. His vote and those of his supporters are basically guaranteed. I was worried about the Alter/Pool voters before but I feel better about it now.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

I'm listening to the first Zoom town hall for Project Connect (PC) featuring CMs Casar, Pool, and Kitchen.

I've heard Pool speak in vague and general terms about supporting transit but this was the first time I've heard her speak specifically and positively about the plan. She wants to stay the course on PC even during this crisis. She even allowed positive words about the McKalla place red line station to leave her face without grimacing. My recollection on the 2014 plan was that she opposed it - I don't remember if she had a specific reason for her opposition.

I think her support for a bond/tax election is going to be a pretty good indicator of how the ANC/Nimby types will vote. While development attitudes aren't cleanly partisan, transit attitudes usually are. The ANC/Nimby types claim to be progressives but aren't reliable votes in favor of transit. I think this is especially true when it could mean losing road lanes or having visible/conspicuous transit infrastructure as may be the case with PC. Most of these people would be the first votes to peel away due to worries about increased property taxes. That Pool wasn't more guarded in her language is a good sign.

Casar spoke excitedly about this project as you might have expected. His vote and those of his supporters are basically guaranteed. I was worried about the Alter/Pool voters before but I feel better about it now.

What was the context of the Red Line station comment? Are those still potentially in (even with the other red line improvements being removed)?

I wanted to listen in but had work conflicts.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by Novacek

What was the context of the Red Line station comment? Are those still potentially in (even with the other red line improvements being removed)?

I wanted to listen in but had work conflicts.

Pool spoke about McKalla and Broadmoor stations as though they are definitely going to happen. Randy Clarke mentioned at the very beginning that they'd hope to have more info on Broadmoor station in the coming weeks.

I think the call is being recorded. I had to jump off Zoom to take a work call.

I found the recording on the CapMetro Facebook account under the Live videos. I can't link from my work machine however

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

For a primarily north south city.

I'm aware, but there is enough density between Mopac, downtown, and east Austin to potentially warrant an east-west route that is a bit more seamless.

[Novacek]

There’s a “Broadmoor Station Update” on the agenda for the next CapMetro board meeting this Friday. Just agenda, no packet yet.

https://capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/N...ing_Agenda.pdf

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

There’s a “Broadmoor Station Update” on the agenda for the next CapMetro board meeting this Friday. Just agenda, no packet yet.

https://capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/N...ing_Agenda.pdf

Hopefully good news.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

There’s a “Broadmoor Station Update” on the agenda for the next CapMetro board meeting this Friday. Just agenda, no packet yet.

https://capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/N...ing_Agenda.pdf

Looks like it will be an oral update at the meeting. Nothing in the packet.

[slippi]

Presentation is here: http://capmetrotx.iqm2.com/Citizens/...MeetingID=1868

Just absurd that our transit agency is building a 400 car parking garage on the land next to the stop. Let someone build apartments on that land and use the money on truly anything else.

[Echostatic]

Park-And-Rides are an integral part of suburban rail transit. If you don't live within walking distance of a transit station, you'll probably drive to it. Every station past Kramer has a large parking lot, and most major bus terminals in the city have significant lots as well. Good luck getting people to bike to transit with the summer heat we have around here.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by slippi

Presentation is here: http://capmetrotx.iqm2.com/Citizens/...MeetingID=1868

Just absurd that our transit agency is building a 400 car parking garage on the land next to the stop. Let someone build apartments on that land and use the money on truly anything else.

They’re not.

Brandywine is.

I imagine it’ll end up similar to the Triangle Park and Ride.

[slippi]

Originally Posted by Echostatic

Park-And-Rides are an integral part of suburban rail transit. If you don't live within walking distance of a transit station, you'll probably drive to it. Every station past Kramer has a large parking lot, and most major bus terminals in the city have significant lots as well. Good luck getting people to bike to transit with the summer heat we have around here.

That's why we should allow as many people to live within walking distance of this stop as possible.

[slippi]

Originally Posted by Novacek

They’re not.

Brandywine is.

I imagine it’ll end up similar to the Triangle Park and Ride.

What's in it for Brandywine? Surely they're not building a free parking garage for those that want to get on a train and promptly leave the development. Or are these just parking spots they were already required to build due to parking requirements for the development?

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by slippi

What's in it for Brandywine? Surely they're not building a free parking garage for those that want to get on a train and promptly leave the development. Or are these just parking spots they were already required to build due to parking requirements for the development?

The "shared parking spaces" description is interesting. Maybe it's just a garage with 400 general spaces for retail guests that transit users could use as well? The number of people who would park at Broadmoor just to ride downtown is probably so small that it would have virtually no impact on Broadmoor retail visitors outside of special events like SXSW, Pecan St Festival, or maybe Austin FC. I'm assuming people who are inclined to use the Park & Ride model mostly already do so at Lakeline or Howard.

I would think the companies renting commercial space would require their spaces be guaranteed, or at least shared among other commercial tenants and not open to the general public.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by slippi

What's in it for Brandywine? Surely they're not building a free parking garage for those that want to get on a train and promptly leave the development. Or are these just parking spots they were already required to build due to parking requirements for the development?

The get the train station, and the millions of square feet of additional development entitlements that unlocks.

CM can’t ask for the moon, but they’re not coming hat in hand either. It’s a negotiated mutually beneficial arrangement.

As I said, I suspect it will at least mostly be the existing required parking, with CM riders only allowed to use it during the day on weekdays, like at the triangle.

[slippi]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The get the train station, and the millions of square feet of additional development entitlements that unlocks.

CM can’t ask for the moon, but they’re not coming hat in hand either. It’s a negotiated mutually beneficial arrangement.

As I said, I suspect it will at least mostly be the existing required parking, with CM riders only allowed to use it during the day on weekdays, like at the triangle.

Unfortunately I think further subsidizing driving is the opposite of a benefit for the city. Using that land for offices or residences would net the city additional tax revenue and bring in more ridership than a parking garage.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by slippi

Unfortunately I think further subsidizing driving is the opposite of a benefit for the city. Using that land for offices or residences would net the city additional tax revenue and bring in more ridership than a parking garage.

Who said anything about benefit for the city? I said mutually beneficial between brandywine and capital metro.

But if the city wanted less parking and more other development, they shouldn’t have such high parking requirements.

[slippi]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Who said anything about benefit for the city? I said mutually beneficial between brandywine and capital metro.

But if the city wanted less parking and more other development, they shouldn’t have such high parking requirements.

My comment on ridership applies to Cap Metro as well. Agreed on the second point, but there's not much Cap Metro can do about that.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Who said anything about benefit for the city? I said mutually beneficial between brandywine and capital metro.

But if the city wanted less parking and more other development, they shouldn’t have such high parking requirements.

CapMetro loses money on every passenger. why is it a benefit for them to have more?
If 96%-98% of all Brandywine customers and workers get their by private transportation requiring parking places, why is it a benefit for them, CapMetro, and the City to have less parking spaces?
We are not playing Cities Skylines, reality is far different!

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by electricron

CapMetro loses money on every passenger. why is it a benefit for them to have more?
If 96%-98% of all Brandywine customers and workers get their by private transportation requiring parking places, why is it a benefit for them, CapMetro, and the City to have less parking spaces?
We are not playing Cities Skylines, reality is far different!

If CapMetro gets more passengers while maintaining the same service level, they obviously benefit financially from the increase in fares. This would manifest as a reduction in the "loss" you describe. But to even talk in these terms is to follow the CATO playbook.

From CapMetro's perspective, why should it be hard to see that they would benefit from someone else paying to build a park and ride for them? Adding any new passengers at effectively no additional cost to them is a win. Besides this there are intangible gains in the form of increased goodwill and community reach.