AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

At first I was a little disappointed that they seem to be scaling back but after your comment I can see why saving money here would make sense if it means a downtown tunnel. Plus there's no reason it can't be transitioned into light rail in the future when increased capacity demands it.

I think this scenario is reasonable, but if there is a need for a downtown tunnel it is on Guadalupe, not 4th Street. Guadalupe already carries a significant amount of automobile and bus traffic. Reserving two lanes (or one on Guadalupe and one on Lavaca) for 100% transit dedication for both LRT and buses could be challenging. That kind of happens now, but the 'reserved' lanes are often impeded by right turn movements and cars ignoring the lane reservations. Proper LRT stations also require more space than the existing bus stops on Guadalupe and Lavaca.

4th Street has very little traffic on it, and most is circling for parking. 4th Street should become a transit mall, with the elimination of street parking and limited auto access to those few buildings that need access to 4th for parking or loading. Those can be handled by a single one-way lane that only allows circling that particular block, and not through movements.

Under this scenario, the likely connection between the downtown stations is made primarily by the Gold Line BRT. I predict that the Trinity Crossing will be eliminated in the definition of Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) that this is leading towards. Both Orange and Blue LRT will cross LBL in a shared crossing near S 1st (either tunnel or new bridge because the existing Drake bridge cannot accommodate LRT without significant rebuilding). The lake crossings are the most expensive part of the proposed system, whether tunnel or bridge, so it makes sense to develop only one initially and reserve the ability to build the second in the future. The Trinity crossing would make the most sense once the Gold Line BRT is replaced by a Blue Line LRT extension, as originally envisioned.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by H2O

I think this scenario is reasonable, but if there is a need for a downtown tunnel it is on Guadalupe, not 4th Street. Guadalupe already carries a significant amount of automobile and bus traffic. Reserving two lanes (or one on Guadalupe and one on Lavaca) for 100% transit dedication for both LRT and buses could be challenging. That kind of happens now, but the 'reserved' lanes are often impeded by right turn movements and cars ignoring the lane reservations. Proper LRT stations also require more space than the existing bus stops on Guadalupe and Lavaca.

4th Street has very little traffic on it, and most is circling for parking. 4th Street should become a transit mall, with the elimination of street parking and limited auto access to those few buildings that need access to 4th for parking or loading. Those can be handled by a single one-way lane that only allows circling that particular block, and not through movements.

Under this scenario, the likely connection between the downtown stations is made primarily by the Gold Line BRT. I predict that the Trinity Crossing will be eliminated in the definition of Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) that this is leading towards. Both Orange and Blue LRT will cross LBL in a shared crossing near S 1st (either tunnel or new bridge because the existing Drake bridge cannot accommodate LRT without significant rebuilding). The lake crossings are the most expensive part of the proposed system, whether tunnel or bridge, so it makes sense to develop only one initially and reserve the ability to build the second in the future. The Trinity crossing would make the most sense once the Gold Line BRT is replaced by a Blue Line LRT extension, as originally envisioned.

They are proposing the tunnel be under 4th street, guadalupe, and the short stretch of Trinity before it exits downtown and crosses the river.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by H2O

I think this scenario is reasonable, but if there is a need for a downtown tunnel it is on Guadalupe, not 4th Street. Guadalupe already carries a significant amount of automobile and bus traffic. Reserving two lanes (or one on Guadalupe and one on Lavaca) for 100% transit dedication for both LRT and buses could be challenging. That kind of happens now, but the 'reserved' lanes are often impeded by right turn movements and cars ignoring the lane reservations. Proper LRT stations also require more space than the existing bus stops on Guadalupe and Lavaca.

4th Street has very little traffic on it, and most is circling for parking. 4th Street should become a transit mall, with the elimination of street parking and limited auto access to those few buildings that need access to 4th for parking or loading. Those can be handled by a single one-way lane that only allows circling that particular block, and not through movements.

Under this scenario, the likely connection between the downtown stations is made primarily by the Gold Line BRT. I predict that the Trinity Crossing will be eliminated in the definition of Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) that this is leading towards. Both Orange and Blue LRT will cross LBL in a shared crossing near S 1st (either tunnel or new bridge because the existing Drake bridge cannot accommodate LRT without significant rebuilding). The lake crossings are the most expensive part of the proposed system, whether tunnel or bridge, so it makes sense to develop only one initially and reserve the ability to build the second in the future. The Trinity crossing would make the most sense once the Gold Line BRT is replaced by a Blue Line LRT extension, as originally envisioned.

The Trinity crossing is how you get a connection to the Rainey corridor which is vital. That is so much dense housing, hotels, bars and soon offices.

Also, the lake crossing is nowhere close to the expensive part of this plan.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

The Trinity crossing is how you get a connection to the Rainey corridor which is vital. That is so much dense housing, hotels, bars and soon offices.

Also, the lake crossing is nowhere close to the expensive part of this plan.

It's damn close to a rounding error (while recognizing that we're still talking about millions of dollars).


Say $100M for a "signature bridge".

That's literally 1% of a $10B project.

[ahealy]

Wait, we gonna get a tunnel?!?!?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Wait, we gonna get a tunnel?!?!?

It's possible. I think that is the preference for a lot of reasons. CM Alter was trying to throw water on it because we will have to raise taxes. She's all for a transformative transit system unless we have to pay for it.

[LiveattheOasis]

Originally Posted by freerover

It's possible. I think that is the preference for a lot of reasons. CM Alter was trying to throw water on it because we will have to raise taxes. She's all for a transformative transit system unless we have to pay for it.

Sounds like Austin voters in a nutshell. We love a lot of things until we have to put our money where our mouth is.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by LiveattheOasis

Sounds like Austin voters in a nutshell. We love a lot of things until we have to put our money where our mouth is.

There is enough council members to push it through but at the same time you don't want some members to tell their continuities to vote against it. She will also be up for re-election so I assume that is where her focus will be.

[urbancore]

The voters will NEVER go for a multi billion dollar transit system. They’ve voted it down twice before, and will do it again.

There are not enough voters in the urban core vote to overcome this, mainly cuz renters don’t show up.

Nothing has changed since the last 2 rail defeats.

BTW, I’m all for mass transit....but we need real density (like Portland, Or.) first, and that will NEVER happen in my lifetime. Never. Ever. Never. Seriously.

[nixcity]

The voters will NEVER go for a multi billion dollar transit system. They’ve voted it down twice before, and will do it again.

There are not enough voters in the urban core vote to overcome this, mainly cuz renters don’t show up.

Nothing has changed since the last 2 rail defeats.

BTW, I’m all for mass transit....but we need real density (like Portland, Or.) first, and that will NEVER happen in my lifetime. Never. Ever. Never. Seriously.

The last vote for rail was in the wrong place AND was tied in to highway expansion. The previous vote PASSED and became the red line. Three votes ago (in 2000 when traffic and density were nowhwere near where they are (and it actually passed within city limits)) was shot down by just a few hundred votes. I think people have woken up that we need to try something different.
Lastly, we do have Portland level density downtown and West Campus with a few other areas along the blue and orange (gold) lines that also warrant rail.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by urbancore

The voters will NEVER go for a multi billion dollar transit system. They’ve voted it down twice before, and will do it again.

There are not enough voters in the urban core vote to overcome this, mainly cuz renters don’t show up.

Nothing has changed since the last 2 rail defeats.

BTW, I’m all for mass transit....but we need real density (like Portland, Or.) first, and that will NEVER happen in my lifetime. Never. Ever. Never. Seriously.

Renters show up for presidential elections. This will be the most pro transit electorate ever so it's possible.

[Austin1971]

Originally Posted by urbancore

the voters will never go for a multi billion dollar transit system. They’ve voted it down twice before, and will do it again.

There are not enough voters in the urban core vote to overcome this, mainly cuz renters don’t show up.

Nothing has changed since the last 2 rail defeats.

Btw, i’m all for mass transit....but we need real density (like portland, or.) first, and that will never happen in my lifetime. Never. Ever. Never. Seriously.

a

[urbancore]

Again. I want it to pass.

But it won’t. I’m taking all bets, I’ll put money where my mouth is.

This is a pipe dream.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by nixcity

The last vote for rail was in the wrong place AND was tied in to highway expansion. The previous vote PASSED and became the red line. Three votes ago (in 2000 when traffic and density were nowhwere near where they are (and it actually passed within city limits)) was shot down by just a few hundred votes. I think people have woken up that we need to try something different.

Yep, I was going to make these points. In general Austin passes most bonds of any type, but the last one was even opposed by some rail supporters due to the route. And in 2000, I think the city was blindsided by a well-run opposition. And even so it was incredibly close.

20 years later, and a lot of those price-sensitive voters have been... well, priced out and probably no longer live in the city proper. And the urban population has exploded.

With the map checking most people's boxes, and the rather optimistic price tag after federal grants, I expect this to pass. However, it's too early to predict without seeing the bond wording and proposed property tax increase. The latter vote (which I believe will have to be separate as it's required by the new 3.5% cap) will be more interesting.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hookem

Yep, I was going to make these points. In general Austin passes most bonds of any type, but the last one was even opposed by some rail supporters due to the route. And in 2000, I think the city was blindsided by a well-run opposition. And even so it was incredibly close.

20 years later, and a lot of those price-sensitive voters have been... well, priced out and probably no longer live in the city proper. And the urban population has exploded.

With the map checking most people's boxes, and the rather optimistic price tag after federal grants, I expect this to pass. However, it's too early to predict without seeing the bond wording and proposed property tax increase. The latter vote (which I believe will have to be separate as it's required by the new 3.5% cap) will be more interesting.

It'll be interesting to see how they do a vote. And if they do a bond and property tax election, or just the later.

And of course, CapMetro(unlike any other transit system in Texas) needs its own election for permission to run a rail system, completely separate from any funding questions.

Do they do those two votes (which technically cover separate jurisdictions) on the same ballot? Or do they get funding from the city first (this election) and then try to do a later vote of the entire service area while presenting it as fait accompli (and tax-free, for those outside of Austin).

Either has risks.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It'll be interesting to see how they do a vote. And if they do a bond and property tax election, or just the later.

And of course, CapMetro(unlike any other transit system in Texas) needs its own election for permission to run a rail system, completely separate from any funding questions.

Do they do those two votes (which technically cover separate jurisdictions) on the same ballot? Or do they get funding from the city first (this election) and then try to do a later vote of the entire service area while presenting it as fait accompli (and tax-free, for those outside of Austin).

Either has risks.

Wasn't the Red Line a combined funding and rail vote?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

Wasn't the Red Line a combined funding and rail vote?

There was no funding component of the Red Line vote (ignoring the givebacks for the moment). It was funded out of CapMetros existing cent sales tax, no bonding or tax increase.

There also wasn’t a city vote component (there now would be).

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by urbancore

The voters will NEVER go for a multi billion dollar transit system. They’ve voted it down twice before, and will do it again.

There are not enough voters in the urban core vote to overcome this, mainly cuz renters don’t show up.

Nothing has changed since the last 2 rail defeats.

BTW, I’m all for mass transit....but we need real density (like Portland, Or.) first, and that will NEVER happen in my lifetime. Never. Ever. Never. Seriously.

If this doesn't pass, I'm moving. This is our last chance to salvage the future of this city.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

If this doesn't pass, I'm moving. This is our last chance to salvage the future of this city.

Ah well, you’d probably be replaced by ten new movers.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

If this doesn't pass, I'm moving. This is our last chance to salvage the future of this city.

I'm sorry to hear that. Rail without density (like 10k+ per sq mile) serves too few people for too much $. Code Cronk will no little to nothing to fix this, I'm sad to say. Our corridors are filled with 1 story strip malls and new 3-5 story apartment complexes....when they should be 10-12 stories. Proposed transition zones are only a couple of blocks deep and do little to add real density. If you could snap your fingers tomorrow and have the entire city built out to it's highest density, we still would not come close to Portland, Or. Our downtown LOOKS impressive, but really there are less than 25k people living downtown....even if that doubles in 10 years (it won't), that is still a drop in the bucket compared to the 1million plus on our streets.

Austin is too spread out....+ Texan's love their cars + rail cost way too much + rail does too little to reduce cars on the road + conservative voters won't vote for it = bond failure.

What has changed since the voters turned this down twice? Nothing...the burbs have outgrown the urban core, and the burbs will not vote themselves a huge tax increase (most of them are conservative compared to the urban core).

Show me the money....