AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

What a nanny-state in which we live! To pay for it, you'll end up having to pay to drive your kids to school down a tolled residential boulevard. Don't laugh...we're coming to that at some point.

Yea and it makes me sick!

[The ATX]

At $1.4 billion for ~9 miles of rail that serves a dead mall ensures that this is doomed. This will never get approved by Austin voters that already pay high property taxes. Major upgrades to I-35 can be done for $1.4 billion. Light rail is "cool", but this 9 mile route will not relieve congestion and will only cause homes and rents in Austin to skyrocket even more.

I'm a big light rail supporter, but I would vote no on this.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...t-a-cos/nfnZg/

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

At $1.4 billion for ~9 miles of rail that serves a dead mall ensures that this is doomed. This will never get approved by Austin voters that already pay high property taxes. Major upgrades to I-35 can be done for $1.4 billion. Light rail is "cool", but this 9 mile route will not relieve congestion and will only cause homes and rents in Austin to skyrocket even more.

I'm a big light rail supporter, but I would vote no on this.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...t-a-cos/nfnZg/

You do realize Highland is much more than a 'dead mall' right?

http://www.austincc.edu/bond/meeting...1/highland.pdf

The other advantage this plan has is the potential to capture commuters on IH-35, 290, and 183 at a park and ride before they hit all the congestion near 51st that the convergence of those highways causes.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by H2O

You do realize Highland is much more than a 'dead mall' right?

http://www.austincc.edu/bond/meeting...1/highland.pdf

The other advantage this plan has is the potential to capture commuters on IH-35, 290, and 183 at a park and ride before they hit all the congestion near 51st that the convergence of those highways causes.

Yes, "I do realize" that it is also an ACC campus as well as a dead mall. But 1.4$ billion will buy a lot of road expansion and bicycle lanes. For the first time I am now against light rail.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...rban-rail.html

May 2, 2014, 2:46pm CDT
The big plan unveiled: A $1.4 billion urban rail network for Austin

Robert Grattan
Staff Writer-
Austin Business Journal

City officials and Project Connect have recommended the city pursue a $1.38 billion urban rail network running a 9.5-mile route from Highland Mall through downtown and ending on East Riverside Boulevard.

The system will cross Lady Bird Lake via a $175 million bridge and navigate under the existing Red Line train tracks near Hancock Plaza through a $220 million tunnel. Along the way, transit planners ruled out a cheaper but less scalable bus rapid transit mode option, a tunnel under Lady Bird Lake and a cheaper but less connective tunnel north of downtown.

The system is expected to draw a daily ridership of more than 8,000 – or a total of between 16,000 to 20,000 boardings each day by 2030. Officials noted that ridership estimates have historically been lower than actually seen at system opening.

[nixcity]

16,000 to 20,000......what an effing joke!!!! There needs to be another option on the ballot, whether it be a Lamar option (H2O, I'd much rather have people come in on the red line and connect with light rail rather than driving to a park and ride in centrally located) or the cut and cap. We can no longer afford to keep waiting for a true help to the congestion we see worsening by the day.

[NYC2ATX]

You guys are being very irrational and narrow-minded. You need to think about the bigger picture here.

Sending a rail line up Lamar or Guadalupe makes some sense if one could snap their fingers and manifest it up and running tomorrow. It is now only 2014 and they have stated repeatedly that the earliest we will see a completed starter system in operation is around 2020. South Shore District is already well into being developed and Highland Mall has a completely urban plan on how to revitalize the immediate mall property and lots (as H2O demonstrated), and the first phase of conversion to ACC's Main Campus has already begun. By 2020...remember, by 2020...both development plans should be for the most part open, in hyperdrive and attracting similar redevelopments spilling over to neighboring areas. Meanwhile, the Waller Creek district will have exploded and the UT Medical and Innovation campuses should be well underway. This is in the year 2020. Remember.

Transit is not meant only to serve the coolest districts where everyone likes to hang out on the weekends. Transit is about serving the mostly densely populated areas of a city and connecting people between each other, between them and their workplaces, and between them and places of other various obligation. By 2020, this line will be traveling through a majority of the most densely populated areas of the city, and those where the most workers need connectivity.

Do you think that the longtime residents along Lamar, Guadalupe, Congress, Burnet etc, are just going to hop on board and forget they ever owned personal vehicles? Absolutely not. People who have been in Austin or Texas for any considerable amount of time are going to continue to prefer to take their cars. This is the reason why cities like Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas and Phoenix have such difficulty driving up ridership numbers. It is likely better to direct the line towards the areas attracting the most number of new residents, several of whom may accustomed to public transit (not unlike myself, on both counts), and will be overjoyed at having the option.

Do you think that this line is going to magically relieve all the congestion on I-35? The effect of a line along Lamar, Guadalupe or anywhere west of Congress would be negligible at best. Commuter rail is the likely the best solution to that broader issue (drivers coming in from Williamson and Hays counties for example), but don't you think having the line connecting the most concentrated sources of direct local traffic on I-35...you know, areas right around it...like Highland/Airport, UT, the Convention Center/Waller, Rainey and Riverside...would do the most good towards eliminating unnecessary local trips in the immediate area?

...and don't you think the line most likely to be a success when opened...in six years...would generate the most revenue immediately and thereby speed up expansion plans that might meet some of your other expectations? I think so.

Just food for thought guys. I just feel like many of you are looking through one lens and not thinking about how development trends may shift in the near future.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by nixcity

16,000 to 20,000......what an effing joke!!!! There needs to be another option on the ballot, whether it be a Lamar option (H2O, I'd much rather have people come in on the red line and connect with light rail rather than driving to a park and ride in centrally located) or the cut and cap. We can no longer afford to keep waiting for a true help to the congestion we see worsening by the day.

The redline is at capacity at 3000 / day. It would require triple tracking (2 plus freight) to Leander to be able to increase that. Combine that with urban rail down Lamar / Guadalupe, and you are easily at $2B. That was the projected cost in 2000, plus you have to add 20 years of inflation. The cost per mile in 2000 was around $50 M / mile. It is now $144 M / mile.

[ATXboom]

I am pro rail to a fault. But I don't think voters are going to approve running rail from downtown to a place already served by rail (highland). The red line stops there!

Ok. Let's assume the university hospital district actually puts people on the east side of downtown. Campus is a stop for them. But north of campus is well served by bus. There is very little opportunity for new development there. So ridership will top out quick. Maybe this spurs more intense redev at highland and adjacent properties?

I don't know. I was hoping we'd put rail where the most transit riders are. The m1 route up Guadalupe and Lamar. Ridership would be fantastic.

Because of the dual service to highland, I now don't think we ever see rail in Austin. Very dissapointing.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by H2O

The redline is at capacity at 3000 / day. It would require triple tracking (2 plus freight) to Leander to be able to increase that. Combine that with urban rail down Lamar / Guadalupe, and you are easily at $2B. That was the projected cost in 2000, plus you have to add 20 years of inflation. The cost per mile in 2000 was around $50 M / mile. It is now $144 M / mile.

One could double the capacity of the Red Line to 6,000 riders per day simply by adding another GTW to every train - and lengthening the station platforms. Lowering headways between trains requires more tracks, not increasing capacity. Up to 3 GTW's can be coupled into one train, so technically tripling the capacity to 9,000 per day can be achieved without adding more track to the main line.

What I found significant in the linked news story was the costs of the $175 million bridge and relatively short $220 million tunnel under a shopping center's parking lot and red line track. That sums up to almost $400 million, ~10% of the length but ~30% of the costs for the total project. Just reinforces the fact that every time the tracks depart from grade, either up or down, costs skyrocket. Of course one must do so when crossing a lake or river and federal regulations require grade separations when crossing another type of railroad.

[nixcity]

"...and don't you think the line most likely to be a success when opened...in six years...would generate the most revenue immediately and thereby speed up expansion plans that might meet some of your other expectations? I think so."

Yes, of course. And that is why the Lamar route is the best option. This urban rail proposal has seen many forms since it was first proposed around a decade ago. Any estimates in ridership in Austin that has included Lamar/Guadalupe has had higher numbers than they are predicting in the future. By 2020 maybe yes all those great things will be in place, I surely hope so but what I do know is that L/G already has the highest density I the whole state of Texas (West Campus) and packed busses to prove there are people there that use alternate modes of transportation.
I would possibly consider voting for something further north from dt up to Round Rock as envisioned somewhat by Project Connect (I can support some of their ideas). That line would do more for aL/G alignment to help relieve traffic on 35.
To be hones I think we will need a pretty massive transportation bond every 2 year cycle for the next decade or so to make up for the negligence in that matter of the past 2 decades or so.

[KevinFromTexas]

I basically agree with what NYC2ATX said. I've been thinking lately and wondering what it must be like for all these newcomers to Austin to be here in a new city that has next to no rail transit. The medical center is no doubt going to inject newcomers into Central Texas that probably wouldn't mind being close to work. People in the medical field work insanely long hours and for weeks in a row sometimes. I would imagine that once they're off from work they're not going to want to be stuck in traffic for another large fraction of their life. I think we have no idea yet what is about to happen on the east side of downtown. Once Waller Creek is done it's going to be massively different in 20 years. I would expect by then that other low density areas like Highland Mall/Airport Boulevard would have redeveloped and densified already or be well into the process. East Riverside is also well on its way to being built out with more density. There will be students and professionals there who probably won't mind taking the train - students especially. And then there's the possibility of running the line to Bergstrom. I've always thought Riverside should be lined with 20-story residential highrises all the way to 71 to encourage that kind of transportation.

On the issue of the commuter trains and adding more cars to them, how long are those trains now? Remember those trains roll through downtown across city blocks, and they can't be any longer than 275 feet long otherwise they'll block intersections.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

On the issue of the commuter trains and adding more cars to them, how long are those trains now? Remember those trains roll through downtown across city blocks, and they can't be any longer than 275 feet long otherwise they'll block intersections.

Excellent point, the GTWs are 134 feet long. The station at the convention center can be two blocks long, approximately 550 feet, without blocking traffic. Three GTWs, approximately 400 feet, will fit easily, even four GTWs should fit. The size problem will only come into play if the red line is extended further into downtown, and if the train has to stop for a traffic light. I don't think there are any plans to extend the train further into downtown, and traffic signals can be set to give the train priority so it wouldn't have to stop.

While I made the argument that more tracks aren't needed to increase capacity, that lengthening the trains could accommodate that, I will admit the easiest way to drive increase demand is to lower headways, which will require more tracks.

Most light rail trains are only around 100 feet long, most streetcars are around 70 feet long. Running multiple units of light rail trains are common, running multiple units of streetcars are not common.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

I'd much rather have people come in on the red line and connect with light rail

Uh, they can do that too, with the current proposal.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by H2O

The redline is at capacity at 3000 / day. It would require triple tracking (2 plus freight) to Leander to be able to increase that.

False. They're planning on increasing frequency (which also increases capacity) with additional double-tracking in some small segments soon.

Long term, double-tracking the whole way would be nice, but it's not the only way to increase capacity. They also can grow the DMUs.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that triple-tracking was necessary (and there's not room for it), they'll just continue to have temporal separation.

[M1EK]

By 2020, Highland will continue to have jack shit compared to the existing travel demand on the Lamar corridor. Mark my words.

East Riverside has some growth potential. Highland has some plans for some 3 story 'donut' buildings in the Highland Mall parking lot, and a bunch of tax exempt property with community college students in it who would have taken the bus anyways and aren't paying fares for the privilege.

This is about making a couple of redevelopment projects which political officials have invested a lot of political capital in look better, and about not wanting to embarass those who overpromised what Rapid Bus really was. Urban jewelry. It's going to be a low-ridership disaster, hence high-subsidies, hence more cuts to bus service along the lines of those the Red Line caused, and then no more rail for us (we won't have any money left and no more ability to save).

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by M1EK

By 2020, Highland will continue to have jack shit compared to the existing travel demand on the Lamar corridor. Mark my words.

East Riverside has some growth potential. Highland has some plans for some 3 story 'donut' buildings in the Highland Mall parking lot, and a bunch of tax exempt property with community college students in it who would have taken the bus anyways and aren't paying fares for the privilege.

This is about making a couple of redevelopment projects which political officials have invested a lot of political capital in look better, and about not wanting to embarass those who overpromised what Rapid Bus really was. Urban jewelry. It's going to be a low-ridership disaster, hence high-subsidies, hence more cuts to bus service along the lines of those the Red Line caused, and then no more rail for us (we won't have any money left and no more ability to save).

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

So who do you really think was behind the shift to this plan? Who is it really benefiting? The City? UT? I don't see the sense in it either. But that is honeslty not a studied point of view.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

So who do you really think was behind the shift to this plan? Who is it really benefiting? The City? UT? I don't see the sense in it either. But that is honeslty not a studied point of view.

The city and Capital Metro don't want to look bad re: Rapid Bus; Leffingwell has no stomach for fighting about lane reductions; the city and others want to make the Medical Center and Highland developments look more impressive; etc. Has absolutely nothing to do with real mobility problems, though, and you should most definitely vote the entire thing down unless some radical changes are made.

[nixcity]

I think it's mostly about the med school, which by the year 2022 or so will really be good for mass transit but no way to Highland. Can someone please put up a split picture comparing density of the low rise buildings in their plan for ACC next to WHAT IS ALREADY THERE on L/G.

[austlar1]

I'm with NYC2ATX on this one. The entire Highland area is going to densify rapidly in the next 20-30 years. It is not just contingent on ACC's plans. It is pretty much a case of location, location, location. I think a rail line that skirts 35 and serves areas like the medical center, Highland, downtown, UT, Riverside, and eventually the very fast growing airport is a LONG-TERM winner. The airport already serves 10 million passengers a year, and it is not a hub airport. These are passengers with originating or terminating flights in Austin. The figure is likely to double by 2020 or 2025. Employment will grow rapidly in the airport vicinity. I feel certain that there will be a ton of new housing in the Highland area and elsewhere along the proposed rail line not to mention big increases in employment along the corridor. I think it is very short sighted to focus on likely initial ridership figures. Good rail transit can shape development and develop ridership longterm.