AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I agree that there's a continuum in theory.

In practice, it is more of a binary choice. And it's not city leaders of the industry perpetuating it, it's federal regulators.

I'm sure Stadler would like nothing better than to sell DMUs for use in mixed traffic to alongside heavy freight and everywhere in between. But the FRA nixed it, required crash modifications of the ones Austin bought AND temporal separation.

Stadler does make DMUs capable of operating in mix traffic. While the GTWs CapMetro uses to date can't, the DCTA GTWs with more FRA compatibility improvements can! I believe the 4 new GTWs heading towards Austin will match the DCTA units in that aspect. The FRA is also looking at implementing the "Alternate" FRA regulations DCTA uses nationwide.

The GTWs CapMetro uses meet all of TXDOT's requirements for street running. So extending GTWs further into downtown Austin at grade is possible. Whether or not it is wise is another question. At 4th Street there's only a few cross streets; Capitol, Guadalupe, and Lavaca, where traffic might back up. The question I would like to see answered with an at grade extension would be should it be single or double track?

Personally, I don't think it would be a problem because the planners had wanted to place a streetcar line on 4th Street. Streetcars with much higher frequencies than any commuter train frequencies that would have caused more traffic headaches.
Whatever, if such an extension causes too much traffic headaches, an elevated guideway would be a cheaper solution than a subway. Subways aren't the only answer for trains in highly congested areas after all. Miami's existing trains are elevated in downtown, and the new Brightline trains will be too.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

The GTWs CapMetro uses meet all of TXDOT's requirements for street running. So extending GTWs further into downtown Austin at grade is possible. Whether or not it is wise is another question. At 4th Street there's only a few cross streets; Capitol, Guadalupe, and Lavaca, where traffic might back up. The question I would like to see answered with an at grade extension would be should it be single or double track?

What are TxDot's requirements for streetrunning? Are there any speed limits or other traffic volume limits? Horn requirements?


Basically, I'm trying to understand why, if mixed operation is completely allowed, why all the crossing gates even where there's never freight?


What's your opinion on why the 4th street extension disappeared from plans, never to return?

Originally Posted by electricron

Whatever, if such an extension causes too much traffic headaches, an elevated guideway would be a cheaper solution than a subway. Subways aren't the only answer for trains in highly congested areas after all. Miami's existing trains are elevated in downtown, and the new Brightline trains will be too.

My proposal for depressing was based on my expectation that there'd be significant pushback from an elevated line. Not only from the public in general but also the owners/occupants of adjacent buildings (Hilton, Frost Bank, etc.)
There may also be Capital View Corridor issues, especially crossing Congress.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

What are TxDot's requirements for streetrunning? Are there any speed limits or other traffic volume limits? Horn requirements?

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/TN.547.htm
Glassing, various lamps, various brakes, engine emissions, etc.

Basically, I'm trying to understand why, if mixed operation is completely allowed, why all the crossing gates even where there's never freight?

Are there crossing gates on 4th street? Gates have nothing to do with mixed operations, i.e. FRA compliant or not compliant. Neither does train types, passenger or freight.

What's your opinion on why the 4th street extension disappeared from plans, never to return?

Urban rail replaced it.

My proposal for depressing was based on my expectation that there'd be significant pushback from an elevated line. Not only from the public in general but also the owners/occupants of adjacent buildings (Hilton, Frost Bank, etc.)
There may also be Capital View Corridor issues, especially crossing Congress.

I believe there will be just as much pushback for a open trench rail line too because of construction disruptions.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/TN.547.htm
Glassing, various lamps, various brakes, engine emissions, etc.


Are there crossing gates on 4th street? Gates have nothing to do with mixed operations, i.e. FRA compliant or not compliant. Neither does train types, passenger or freight.
.

After some googling, I think I answered some of my own questions.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...11-rev-2/8.pdf

And I think I was misunderstanding some of what you were stating. By mixed operations, you mean a fully shared lane setting? (which unless I'm misremembering, isn't the case with the red line currently, it's exclusive with at grade crossings, including low speed at grade crossings there at Red River).

My original concern is that extension across downtown might be precluded by the requirement at every cross street for automatic gates. These aren't at Red River, but are located elsewhere on the line even where there's no freight.
From the above document I found, the difference seems to be the speed of the line.

Originally Posted by electricron

I believe there will be just as much pushback for a open trench rail line too because of construction disruptions.

Oh, certainly a lot (with some valid concerns, though elevated wouldn't be without construction disruptions either). But at least with depressed grade the disruptions are temporary.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

After some googling, I think I answered some of my own questions.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...11-rev-2/8.pdf

And I think I was misunderstanding some of what you were stating. By mixed operations, you mean a fully shared lane setting? (which unless I'm misremembering, isn't the case with the red line currently, it's exclusive with at grade crossings, including low speed at grade crossings there at Red River).

My original concern is that extension across downtown might be precluded by the requirement at every cross street for automatic gates. These aren't at Red River, but are located elsewhere on the line even where there's no freight.
From the above document I found, the difference seems to be the speed of the line.

Oh, certainly a lot (with some valid concerns, though elevated wouldn't be without construction disruptions either). But at least with depressed grade the disruptions are temporary.

Light and Commuter Rail trains rarely share lanes with traffic, but it can happen. South Shore Line trains run down the middle of a street in Michigan City, and it is definitely considered a commuter rail line. The cross streets in Michigan City aren't protected by gates either, just like most light rail lines in city streets. Sure, the speed is lowered, but with stations blocks apart the trains aren't going to have time or room to accelerate up to full speed anyways.

While depressed grade tracks on 4th may eliminate at grade crossings for cross streets, it'll probably eliminate all parallel traffic on 4th, unless the depressed railroad is capped, at which point you have a subway and not an open ditch. With elevated tracks, you can add traffic lanes under the rail corridor on 4th. So elevated is actually better for permanent traffic than an open depressed ditch in that regard.

[Novacek]

Okay, with some further googling, I think I can start to make some claims, though I'm not claiming to be an expert by any means.

The above document seems to answer my question as to why the Red River crossing gets away with not having crossing gates, while others (including the frontage roads) do. Either the red line is going faster than 35 mph there (or it could, or they don't want that limit).

So it seems like the line could be extended further into downtown without adding crossing gates everywhere. As electricon notes, either in a shared lane or exclusive lane. Sharing the lane seems like it would be bad (after finally getting "exclusive" bus lanes downtown), we don't want the rail getting stuck in gridlock downtown.

Reading https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/part-222 , it does seem like the FRA would require horn soundings at every intersection (since the red line isn't a fully separated rapid transit system https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/222.5 ). Absent a quiet zone (which I believe would require gates again).

That _could_ be a reason to prefer a separated, not general railroad, system downtown. And I think that may be where things are pointing*

But an at-grade, traffic-signal-intersections extension would still be possible.

For the other options wwmiv, I think different treatments would be required.


And I think I'll agree that I was probably being too loose with definitions before. Rather than saying those routes would require "light rail", instead let me state it as "those routes would require significant capital investment in intersection treatments and/or a speed limit that would greatly penalize non-electrified operation".


For your options 2 and 6 (basically any expansion that isn't in an existing railroad RoW that already has limited crossings) I think a 35 mph speed limit in the non-downtown area (where station spacing is wider) will pretty severely performance (and hence the draw compared to SOV). A higher speed then seems to then require crossing gates and other intersection treatments. OR if you keep a 35 mph speed limit, electrified operation (and it's greater acceleration performance) helps to mitigate the speed limit hit.


* I think a separate intra-downtown system is where things are pointing. An extension of the red line (as a commuter line) doesn't seem to be presented as an option in Project connect documents anywhere (even when a bunch of other stuff, even stuff we know is no longer on the table like Lone Star, is https://capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/C...Circulator.pdf )

Instead, we have shaded areas for "Circulators". I'm guessing the push (in the intermediate/long term) will be for that area to be served by some sort of short distance streetcar setup. Hopefully in exclusive lanes.

Compared to extending the red line :

Disadvantages:
No longer one seat, have to transfer

Advantages:
Can reach areas the red line was never going to be extended to.
Easier turning.
Can run at a different frequency than the red(green/yellow) line, helping to serve intra-downtown trips better.
Potentially shorter vehicles to not block downtown intersections (red line doesn't have this problem yet, but hopefully they'll be extended sometime).
Completely separated rapid transit system from railroad, so no longer under FTA jurisdiction or rules.

Potentially simplifying boarding process for outgoing commuters? The new downtown station will have (I believe) 3 board spots, to eventually support high frequencies on the red line as well as other potential outgoing commuter systems (green line, potential yellow line). With multiple commuter lines, you either have to:
1) extend all of them into downtown (double, possibly triple-tracking)
2) have outgoing commuters from rio grande ride the red line to the convention center station, then transfer.

[wwmiv]

Once the system requires transfers, ridership drops precipitously. The increase in cost born by expanding the existing system rather than pairing it with a secondary rail system is much smarter precisely because of this sole very critical piece of info.

As to green v. yellow, what color is the proposed Manor/Elgin line? Because that's the one I meant.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Once the system requires transfers, ridership drops precipitously. The increase in cost born by expanding the existing system rather than pairing it with a secondary rail system is much smarter precisely because of this sole very critical piece of info.

There is a penalty, yes, however it's inversely proportional to frequency (or proportional to wait time, put another way).

And again, you have to trade it off against the potential expanded reach (no red line extension will ever feasibly reach any quadrant of downtown except southwest).

Originally Posted by wwmiv

As to green v. yellow, what color is the proposed Manor/Elgin line? Because that's the one I meant.

Green is the Manor/Elgin line.

Orange (looks yellow in that document) seems to be the new name for the potential MoKan alignment.

[Novacek]

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...ail-extension/

Interesting. Hopefully it passes. I'd rather it just get totally repealed though. Along with all the other "Austin-bashing" laws.


I'm a little confused as to why it's even necessary, though. As it seems like Austin is now large enough to not be covered by 451.071


"Sec. 451.071. REFERENDUM FOR RAIL PLAN; CERTAIN AUTHORITIES. (a) This section applies only to an authority confirmed before July 1, 1985, in which the principal municipality has a population of less than 850,000."

Unless the fact that the Red Line was initially approved by it means that it's forevermore covered.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...51.htm#451.071

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...ail-extension/

Interesting. Hopefully it passes. I'd rather it just get totally repealed though. Along with all the other "Austin-bashing" laws.


I'm a little confused as to why it's even necessary, though. As it seems like Austin is now large enough to not be covered by 451.071


"Sec. 451.071. REFERENDUM FOR RAIL PLAN; CERTAIN AUTHORITIES. (a) This section applies only to an authority confirmed before July 1, 1985, in which the principal municipality has a population of less than 850,000."

Unless the fact that the Red Line was initially approved by it means that it's forevermore covered.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...51.htm#451.071

Ah, found it. Population is explicitly defined in the code as being the preceding Census population.

After all, why let data that's potentially 9 years out of date hold up a bunch of good Austin bashing.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

You are correct that Rapid Bus is not true BRT. It is a simplified version that has been enormously successful in Los Angeles. Given the circumstances of Cap Metro's financial condition and the City's Urban Rail program, it is the right thing to do.

Have a look at the approved list of New Starts and Small Starts just released by the FTA. The only true BRT (by your definition) on the list is the Hartford Busway. At $60 Million / mile, the cost is comparable to light rail. The only project less expensive than Austin's is the Roaring Fork project. This is the transit authority around Aspen, and will run on existing HOV lanes on the only highway running through the valley. It is hardly comparable to our urban context. The next closest, at four times the cost / mile is New York, which is a simplified version of BRT. All of the others on the Small Starts list are 12 to 16 times the cost / mile.



The beauty of Rapid Bus is that it is a small investment, and easily accommodates future upgrades of the corridors to urban rail. That is the whole point of my priorities chart (I am updating the costs of Rapid Bus based on this new information). If we were to build true BRT, it would require permanent alterations to the ROW, and the cost would mean that we could only one corridor, one direction from Downtown, and probably not as far out. As it is, Cap Metro can't raise their 20% match for two or three years until the sales tax recovers.

The majority of the cost of Rapid Bus is the bus purchase. Buses are easily relocated to different corridors as urban rail replaces it in each corridor. Because buses run in the right lane, they are easily accommodated during construction of center median trackways for urban rail. If you build center median busways for true BRT, you have to shut down the BRT service while you add tracks to the busway. The signal priority equipment becomes part of the City's signal infrastructure and can be reused by urban rail. The shelters, benches and signs are easily unbolted from their foundations and relocated to the new corridor. That is how you build a comprehensive transit system incrementally, which is our only option at this point.

You are right that Rapid Bus largely replicates the 101 service, but it is a substantial upgrade from that service. The 20% time improvement comes from the LA experience. MetroRapid might not be a 20% improvement over the 101, but it is an upgrade at very little cost, and the investment is easily relocated as the urban rail system gradually replaces it in key corridors.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is serious discussion of creating bus only lanes on Guadalupe and Lavaca Downtown. The Drag will always be the problem segment, and as I have said before, I don't think dedicated lanes or trackway is very realistic. The only long term solution is a tunnel for that section, but that will be many years in the future.

I was in here to look something else up and couldn't resist reposting this. How'd this turn out, SAM?

Oh, right, ridership crashed. That's how it turned out. Never mind.

Your pal,
M1EK

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Ah, found it. Population is explicitly defined in the code as being the preceding Census population.

After all, why let data that's potentially 9 years out of date hold up a bunch of good Austin bashing.

The law doesn't need to be changed. All CapMetro has to do is disband, and reform itself anew as a transit agency formed in a city of with a population over 850,000 and after July 1, 1985.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Oh, right, ridership crashed. That's how it turned out. Never mind.

No it didn't. Ridership flatlined while the ridership of the rest of the system crashed. Hard.

https://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFil...Spring2016.pdf


Certainly shows the value of the metrorapid (at least in comparison to the status quo. The 2025 plan shows even more promise).


And that's _with_ the stupid massive price increases CapMetro foisted on us.

Combined corridors ridership pre-metrorapid (1L/1M/101/201/3):


fall 2012: 23068
fall 2013: 20900

notice ridership has crashed. hard. _BEFORE_ metrorapid even started running


combined corridors ridership after metrorapid (1/801/275/201/803/3):


fall 2014: 23305
fall 2015: 21640



That's as of fall 2015 (the last fall in that document). I believe there's been some slight decline since then, presumably attributable to continued fallout from price increases and gas price declines.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

No it didn't. Ridership flatlined while the ridership of the rest of the system crashed. Hard.

https://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFil...Spring2016.pdf


Certainly shows the value of the metrorapid (at least in comparison to the status quo. The 2025 plan shows even more promise).


And that's _with_ the stupid massive price increases CapMetro foisted on us.

Combined corridors ridership pre-metrorapid (1L/1M/101/201/3):


fall 2012: 23068
fall 2013: 20900

notice ridership has crashed. hard. _BEFORE_ metrorapid even started running


combined corridors ridership after metrorapid (1/801/275/201/803/3):


fall 2014: 23305
fall 2015: 21640



That's as of fall 2015 (the last fall in that document). I believe there's been some slight decline since then, presumably attributable to continued fallout from price increases and gas price declines.

or if you prefer to only look at the North Lamar/South Congress corridor (1L/1M/101/201 vs. 1/801/275/201)

fall 2012:17797
fall 2013:15859
fall 2014:15632
fall 2015:14070

In this corridor specifically, there's been some decline over 2 years. But less than the decline the corridor saw in the 1 preceding year. Here metrorapid seems to have slowed the bleeding.

[M1EK]

Hey, I'm not going to get in a battle of time with Novacek, but be aware that even Cap Metro acknowledges a disproportionate (i.e. both distinguishable from previous trends and worse than the system as a whole) drop in ridership on that corridor.

I'm not getting involved again beyond that, unless the management of this group has radically changed since the last time I stepped away, so have fun y'all.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Hey, I'm not going to get in a battle of time with Novacek, but be aware that even Cap Metro acknowledges a disproportionate (i.e. both distinguishable from previous trends and worse than the system as a whole) drop in ridership on that corridor.

Pretty hard for them to have done so, when it's _not_ worse than the system as a whole.

Fall 2012 : 133873
Fall 2013 : 125691
Fall 2014 : 117805
Fall 2015 : 109680

fall 2013 -> fall 2015 system ridership (weekday bus) : 15% decline

fall 2013 -> fall 2015 n lamar/congress ridership : 13% decline


Where's the quote?


Now, I can easily imagine them being disappointed at not seeing larger increases. Which probably would have happened if not for their stupid price increases (that they're now partially rolling back).

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I was in here to look something else up and couldn't resist reposting this. How'd this turn out, SAM?

Oh, right, ridership crashed. That's how it turned out. Never mind.

Your pal,
M1EK

Rude.

Go away back to the cave named hiatus from whence you emerged and never come back.

Originally Posted by M1EK

I'm not getting involved again beyond that, unless the management of this group has radically changed since the last time I stepped away, so have fun y'all.

Well then don't get involved and leave. Pretty much everything you spout is motivated by bias. Okay? Thanks, goodbye, and good riddance.

[kingkirbythe....]

Please come back M1EK. This forum needs you.

[Tyrone Shoes]

Study: Commuters driving into Austin face worst traffic in U.S.
From http://buzzworthy.blog.austin360.com...raffic-in-u-s/
If you are sitting in your car, doing zero miles an hour on Interstate 35, and you are thinking that this is the Worst. Traffic. Anywhere. … You could be right.

A new study by transportation analytics firm INRIX says that “commuters getting into Austin spent more time stuck in traffic than anyone else.” The study says highways in and out of Austin have a congestion rate of 28 percent.

Overall, Austin landed at 13th in the United States (42nd in the world) on the INRIX 2016 Traffic Scorecard Report. That’s worse than San Antonio (32nd in the U.S.), but not as bad as Dallas (7th in the U.S.). Los Angeles, New York City and San Francisco took the top 3 spots on the list, respectively.

Austin did make the Top 10, however, when it came to most congested roads. Southbound Interstate 35 (you guessed it) between Airport Boulevard and Slaughter Lane came in at No. 6, nestled between L.A. freeway I-10 eastbound and NYC’s 5th Avenue southbound.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Shoes

Study: Commuters driving into Austin face worst traffic in U.S.
From http://buzzworthy.blog.austin360.com...raffic-in-u-s/
If you are sitting in your car, doing zero miles an hour on Interstate 35, and you are thinking that this is the Worst. Traffic. Anywhere. … You could be right.

A new study by transportation analytics firm INRIX says that “commuters getting into Austin spent more time stuck in traffic than anyone else.” The study says highways in and out of Austin have a congestion rate of 28 percent.

Overall, Austin landed at 13th in the United States (42nd in the world) on the INRIX 2016 Traffic Scorecard Report. That’s worse than San Antonio (32nd in the U.S.), but not as bad as Dallas (7th in the U.S.). Los Angeles, New York City and San Francisco took the top 3 spots on the list, respectively.

Austin did make the Top 10, however, when it came to most congested roads. Southbound Interstate 35 (you guessed it) between Airport Boulevard and Slaughter Lane came in at No. 6, nestled between L.A. freeway I-10 eastbound and NYC’s 5th Avenue southbound.

And unless we do something about our affordability/housing development/zoning within the city, it will only continue to get worse.