AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[enthurzan]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Please do.

Yea if you can draw out all of Project Connect on Google My Maps that would be awesome. Would love to play around with it

[H2O]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here are ROW cross sections for key points on the Blue Line:

















All drawings unsourced

I find it really interesting that none of these sections show catenaries, and the ceilings of the tunnel sections seem too low to accommodate them. I haven't really kept up to date on LRV technology in the past decade or so, but as far as I know, contactless and battery based traction power systems are still pretty experimental. I am aware of the short section in Bourdeaux, but I'm not aware of any extensive system that operates completely without catenaries. I wonder is they are assuming that battery technology will be advanced enough by the time they are procuring vehicles that catenaries will be a thing of the past? I guess if it is possible to operate battery electric buses on extensive lines, it should be possible to operate LRVs as well?

[freerover]

Clark wants to go wireless. I assume that means battery with charging in the tunnels but it could also be 3rd rail like they have in parts of LRT in France.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by freerover

Clark wants to go wireless. I assume that means battery with charging in the tunnels but it could also be 3rd rail like they have in parts of LRT in France.

That would be super cool to potentially be the first all wireless, all electric significant rail system! It seems risky, though, to design the whole system around a largely untested concept that may or may not come to fruition by the time they start procuring vehicles. If there are only one or two vendors that offer the technology, and the technology isn't fully proven, the likelihood is to get very high bids. Alternatively, you might get a very competitive bid from a vendor that wants to showcase their product, but might not be up to the quality standards expected in the industry. To me it would make more sense to design the system around existing proven technology, but make it clear in the procurement process that they are open to and encouraging alternative propulsion technology.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by H2O

That would be super cool to potentially be the first all wireless, all electric significant rail system! It seems risky, though, to design the whole system around a largely untested concept that may or may not come to fruition by the time they start procuring vehicles. If there are only one or two vendors that offer the technology, and the technology isn't fully proven, the likelihood is to get very high bids. Alternatively, you might get a very competitive bid from a vendor that wants to showcase their product, but might not be up to the quality standards expected in the industry. To me it would make more sense to design the system around existing proven technology, but make it clear in the procurement process that they are open to and encouraging alternative propulsion technology.

You can read about 3rd rail LRT here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_APS

It's pretty cool. I walked all over it and didn't die once.

[H2O]

I am familiar with Bordeaux, but was not aware that Dubai and Rio already use it extensively. There are other manufacturers with different wireless systems like Bombardier's Primove. Wireless may be becoming more common, but it still isn't exactly standard.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by H2O

That would be super cool to potentially be the first all wireless, all electric significant rail system! It seems risky, though, to design the whole system around a largely untested concept that may or may not come to fruition by the time they start procuring vehicles. If there are only one or two vendors that offer the technology, and the technology isn't fully proven, the likelihood is to get very high bids. Alternatively, you might get a very competitive bid from a vendor that wants to showcase their product, but might not be up to the quality standards expected in the industry. To me it would make more sense to design the system around existing proven technology, but make it clear in the procurement process that they are open to and encouraging alternative propulsion technology.

I'm sure that there's a not insignificant cost to maintaining miles and miles of a wire system though. Going wireless may incur more up front risks/costs, but in the long run, it could potentially end up saving money. I don't know enough to know if that is true or not, but it seems like a plausible train (*cough*) of thought.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by paul78701

I'm sure that there's a not insignificant cost to maintaining miles and miles of a wire system though. Going wireless may incur more up front risks/costs, but in the long run, it could potentially end up saving money. I don't know enough to know if that is true or not, but it seems like a plausible train (*cough*) of thought.

I suspect it is the opposite. Catenary traction power is so standard, it is easily repaired with off the shelf parts made by many suppliers and serviceable by competent electricians. Proprietary systems require parts made by a single manufacturer and serviced by specialists. The potential for higher costs is much greater.

[KevinFromTexas]

I've always kind of been puzzled by the rush to upgrade those highways as that area isn't really the preferred path of development. And also, the traffic is bad, but it could be worse, especially by Austin standards.

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-...CLdoVwfXJr6zcXd5yIU0bwXqRwYrnHvXk5ADZT9U
Construction Nears For The 'Y' In Oak Hill As Neighbors Press For Changes

KUT 90.5 | By Nathan Bernier
Published June 4, 2021 at 5:01 AM CDT

A contentious highway project in Southwest Austin around an interchange that’s become synonymous with gridlock is about to break ground even as neighbors keep fighting to dial it back.

The “Y” in Oak Hill is a heavily congested junction where U.S. 290 and Texas 71 split into separate highways. Pre-construction work has already started on the Texas Department of Transportation's $674 million plan to rebuild the interchange, add nonstop lanes and flyovers, and make the thoroughfare up to 12 lanes wide. TxDOT is calling it the Oak Hill Parkway.

But residents and environmentalists worry about the project's effects on everything from water to quality of life. They're promoting an alternative plan they say would increase traffic capacity without sacrificing the look and feel of the area or its sensitive environmental features.

The stretch of U.S. 290/Texas 71 from MoPac to RM 1826 is the 43rd most congested in the state, according to an annual ranking by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Traffic slowdowns on that 4-mile stretch of road waste more than one-million person hours per year, the institute says.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I've always kind of been puzzled by the rush to upgrade those highways as that area isn't really the preferred path of development. And also, the traffic is bad, but it could be worse, especially by Austin standards.

Would you, please, clarify your opinion? Specifically with regard to: "preferred path of development."

[KevinFromTexas]

I'd rather not see Hamilton Pool and Camp Ben McCullough overrun and surrounded by development. To not see Onion Creek polluted. Onion Creek can also be something of a monster when it floods. And not see development in an area that has largely been left untouched until now. The type of development that area will see will be generic and no different than every other corner of the metro. Just more roofs and more traffic I don't live out there, so I'm not being a nimby about it, it's just that it's the last place I'd be thinking of for development.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I've always kind of been puzzled by the rush to upgrade those highways as that area isn't really the preferred path of development. And also, the traffic is bad, but it could be worse, especially by Austin standards.

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-...CLdoVwfXJr6zcXd5yIU0bwXqRwYrnHvXk5ADZT9U
Construction Nears For The 'Y' In Oak Hill As Neighbors Press For Changes

KUT 90.5 | By Nathan Bernier
Published June 4, 2021 at 5:01 AM CDT

A contentious highway project in Southwest Austin around an interchange that’s become synonymous with gridlock is about to break ground even as neighbors keep fighting to dial it back.

The “Y” in Oak Hill is a heavily congested junction where U.S. 290 and Texas 71 split into separate highways. Pre-construction work has already started on the Texas Department of Transportation's $674 million plan to rebuild the interchange, add nonstop lanes and flyovers, and make the thoroughfare up to 12 lanes wide. TxDOT is calling it the Oak Hill Parkway.

But residents and environmentalists worry about the project's effects on everything from water to quality of life. They're promoting an alternative plan they say would increase traffic capacity without sacrificing the look and feel of the area or its sensitive environmental features.

The stretch of U.S. 290/Texas 71 from MoPac to RM 1826 is the 43rd most congested in the state, according to an annual ranking by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Traffic slowdowns on that 4-mile stretch of road waste more than one-million person hours per year, the institute says.

Well, traffic congestion on these two highways in the vicinity of the Y intersection is irritating almost all day long and maddening at rush hour. A lot of affluent folks pass through there every day, and there has been pressure for at least two decades to get something done. What puzzles me is why the state highway planners are so reluctant to embrace a parkway concept through the area. A parkway design could carry a heavy load of traffic with much less destruction of the surrounding environment. If NYC can tear down the old West Side Highway and replace it with a parkway like road that carries probably 10 times the volume of traffic as this stretch of Austin roadway, it seems obvious that a parkway solution can get the job done. I realize any comparison with NYC seems absurd, but new-build parkways are kind of hard to find in freeway crazy USA.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/West_Side_Highway_from_1_WTC_New_York_City.JPG

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, that's the other thing. There are some parts of the metro where huge concrete highways are ok and don't look out of place, but for areas like that one and also Loop 360, they wouldn't look right. One of the beautiful things about Loop 360 and even Mopac is they aren't the concrete behemoths that I-35 is. You can build capacity without it being soulless and ugly. And 30,000 new single family homes in an area that is 20+ miles from downtown isn't a good thing. The water crisis is going to be fun. I remember the Oak Hill fire 10 years ago had a lot of people worried out there, including friends of ours who have a house off 290.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by freerover

Clark wants to go wireless. I assume that means battery with charging in the tunnels but it could also be 3rd rail like they have in parts of LRT in France.

Whatever wireless solution they choose, it will be more expensive.

Alstom's third rail wireless solution costs 5% more than overhead catenary systems, and 5% on every light rail vehicle. More information on it here.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/15_02_swanson.pdf

Battery systems on light rail trains are being introduced worldwide. Range depends upon the size of the battery on the light rail; vehicle, grades of the route, and speeds of the trains. Generally, a typical light rail vehicle can hold around 5 tons of lithium ion batteries. Stadler rail is building metro (light rail) type vehicles in England for Newcastle and Liverpool area local transit systems. Newcastle's requirement is 45 minutes of normal operations with a power outage on their overhead catenary system (ocs) - which would then need a complete recharge of the battery that could take hours. Liverpool requirements will be different, they're looking at various ranges and how that would effect operations. They're looking at extending the train (1) 10 miles beyond their existing traditional third rail system, then returning the train back the same 10 miles where the existing third rail system will be able to fully recharge the battery over the existing route, or extending the train (2) 15 miles beyond the third rail system, and doing a partial recharge just enough to get the train back to its third rail system, a partial recharge taking less than 20 minutes or so to do. Once the train leaves the power system, overhead or on the ground, 20 miles or so, a recharge would take hours to do. On a rail transit system that needs headways of every 15 minutes or so, you can not go far on batteries that would fit on a traditional light rail type train. And 20 minutes stops at stations is only acceptable at the end of line stations. In either case, the size of battery capable of being squeezed onto a light rail vehicle today is 45 minutes or around 22 miles.
Math = 30 mph average x .75 hours = 22.5 miles.

Additionally, the fastest way to recharge a battery on a light rail vehicle at the end of the line stations is with another huge battery. That battery then is recharged with a large battery charger rated with a capacity to recharge that battery over a period of the train's trip. To explain somewhat, if the light rail vehicle averages 30 mph, and the trip takes an hour, you can get away with a charger that can take twice as long to charge the battery at the station than it takes that battery to charge the battery on the train. Therefore having a smaller charger size than if it charged the battery on the train directly.

Never-the-less, as I suggested would happen a month or so ago, CapMetro is already asking ATP for a more expensive train and a more expensive railroad in the streets. Costs will continue to rise, this transit system will go overbudget if it remain at the original length, or it will be shorten to remain in budget later. Value for money has already been thrown into the trash bin of wants.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

Never-the-less, as I suggested would happen a month or so ago, CapMetro is already asking ATP for a more expensive train and a more expensive railroad in the streets.

No, they’re not.

A couple of random posters have hypothesized that CM might look to other solutions just eyeballing RoW profiles, but CM hasn’t asked for a damn thing yet.

Edit\add: in the rare cases where they do actually call out vertical measurements, they seem to be way too careful to keep an extra 3’0” clear for them to have ruled out overhead power already.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

No, they’re not.

A couple of random posters have hypothesized that CM might look to other solutions just eyeballing RoW profiles, but CM hasn’t asked for a damn thing yet.

I guess that depends upon who Clarke is?
https://capmetro.org/executive-staff
"President and CEO - Prior to joining Capital Metro, Randy Clarke held key leadership positions in public transportation in both Boston and Washington, D.C., and earned a master's degree in public policy from the University of Southern Maine.
Since he joined Capital Metro and following the 2018 redesign of its bus network, transit ridership has been on the rise in the Austin area. Clarke sees the operation through the eyes of his customer by using the service every day, giving him insight that's fueled his challenge to “do more” in providing quality transportation options to the growing region. That familiarity with the service led Clarke to put in place multimillion dollar investments to the system and a renewed focus on improving customer experience."

President and CEO of CapMetro does not sound like a random poster to me.
Now, did the random poster earlier quote Clarke correctly? That I do not have the answer to.

I'm going to repeat what I suggested much earlier in this thread, it is a mistake to have one organization build and operate a transit system financed by another organization. It is so easy to overspend when spending someone else's money.

Coming from Boston, the home of the "Big Dig" boondoggle and from DC where "Big Daddy Uncle Sam" comes to the rescue every time, my hopes of a build it on time and on budget transit system fades away the more I study who is running CapMetro.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

President and CEO of CapMetro does not sound like a random poster to me.
Now, did the random poster earlier quote Clarke correctly? That I do not have the answer to.

What quote? There was no such quote posted.

Originally Posted by electricron

I'm going to repeat what I suggested much earlier in this thread, it is a mistake to have one organization build and operate a transit system financed by another organization. It is so easy to overspend when spending someone else's money.

I guess it's a good thing ATP isn't set up that way, then.

ATP isn't writing checks out of CoA's budget. They have their own budget.

They can't shoot for the moon because "someone else is paying for it". THEY are paying for it. They're budgeting it. They're trading off various design choices and scheduling issues.

[freerover]

I don’t misquote. There was never a plan for overhead wires. That’s why none of the concept materials commissioned before prop A ever included them so no, we are not seeing the budget go up.

Clark is also the ceo of ATP which was setup to qualify for federal funds. Everything is fine. Stop freaking out.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'd rather not see Hamilton Pool and Camp Ben McCullough overrun and surrounded by development. To not see Onion Creek polluted. Onion Creek can also be something of a monster when it floods. And not see development in an area that has largely been left untouched until now. The type of development that area will see will be generic and no different than every other corner of the metro. Just more roofs and more traffic I don't live out there, so I'm not being a nimby about it, it's just that it's the last place I'd be thinking of for development.

With all due respect, you are 100% sounding NIMBY. I respect what you "want." However, that is not reality.

That area of Austin has seen an incredible amount of growth in the last 20 years. It's only a matter of time that 290 and 71 will need to be improved similar to what happened to US-183 20-25 years ago. People want AND are moving to Austin's southwest and western suburbs. TX-71 and US-290 are the main thoroughfares into Austin from those locations. The "Y" must be expanded and improved to stay ahead of the growth.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, that's the other thing. There are some parts of the metro where huge concrete highways are ok and don't look out of place, but for areas like that one and also Loop 360, they wouldn't look right. One of the beautiful things about Loop 360 and even Mopac is they aren't the concrete behemoths that I-35 is. You can build capacity without it being soulless and ugly. And 30,000 new single family homes in an area that is 20+ miles from downtown isn't a good thing. The water crisis is going to be fun. I remember the Oak Hill fire 10 years ago had a lot of people worried out there, including friends of ours who have a house off 290.

Loop 360 is a failure. It was built in the late 1960's with no forethought of future growth in the area. Both MoPac and 360 are parking lots during rush hours (pre-COVID and will be again soon). They are in no way efficient in getting traffic moving in the best way possible.

30,000 new single family homes 20 miles from downtown Austin is the norm for a large metro area. Austin is becoming a large metro. Get on board or move away. You and the other NIMBYs cannot stop the allure of Austin. Accept that growth is inevitable and then become a member of those who want to really make it work.