AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Novacek

1. Because it's _downtown_. A higher density of stations is both expected and desirable.

2. Adding even more unground distance will add hundreds of millions of dollars (at least) to costs. Dwarfing the cost of the ARC building.

3. Doing so would eliminate the incredibly needed bike/pedestrian connection. So much for making it "accessible to the public".

So you'd be spending millions (at least) to make it less useful all to save _half_ of a building that will be 15 years old at that time.

A pedestrian bridge can still be built. I don't find walking next to a train real comforting or tranquil. Even bikes flying by are scary.

Train station right on the water? Train tracks over the water. No thanks. Save the land and the water by going underground. Otherwise its a sore sight for generations to come. I've never seen a train station that didn't turn into garbage at some point.

Millions of dollars, who's counting. Train stations are not exactly chump change. 10-15MM for new ARC, another 35M saved by not having one train station in "dense" Austin. That's 50M towards a tunnel.

Go big, or go home, wasn't that the motto? We can do better Austin.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by JAM

Go big, or go home, wasn't that the motto?

So your definition of "go big" is a smaller, less useful system.

And no, I don't think that was ever the motto.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by JAM

A pedestrian bridge can still be built. I don't find walking next to a train real comforting or tranquil. Even bikes flying by are scary.

Train station right on the water? Train tracks over the water. No thanks. Save the land and the water by going underground. Otherwise its a sore sight for generations to come. I've never seen a train station that didn't turn into garbage at some point.

Millions of dollars, who's counting. Train stations are not exactly chump change. 10-15MM for new ARC, another 35M saved by not having one train station in "dense" Austin. That's 50M towards a tunnel.

Go big, or go home, wasn't that the motto? We can do better Austin.

I think you must be misunderstanding the proposal. It is the bridge that is in conflict with the ARC, not the station. The station is well north of the boathouse on Trinity, next to the convention center. There will be a station entrance near the corner of Trinity and Cesar Chavez, but the pedestrian tunnels of the station head north of there.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So your definition of "go big" is a smaller, less useful system.

And no, I don't think that was ever the motto.

A one hundred lane I-35 would be useful too. Turning CC into a 6 lane freeway would be very useful for moving traffic thru downtown. But I think we both agree would be quite ugly. Kind of like steel tracks going over top of a beautiful lake.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by H2O

I think you must be misunderstanding the proposal. It is the bridge that is in conflict with the ARC, not the station. The station is well north of the boathouse on Trinity, next to the convention center. There will be a station entrance near the corner of Trinity and Cesar Chavez, but the pedestrian tunnels of the station head north of there.

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but I see 3 stops, all in less than a 1/4 radius. Seems like a big waste of money to me. Having one on each side of CC makes sense. But 2 of them are less than 3 blocks apart, that is a waste of resources, especially when it ruins parkland.

https://www.capmetro.org/project-connect/system-plan/blue-line

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by JAM

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but I see 3 stops, all in less than a 1/4 radius. Seems like a big waste of money to me. Having one on each side of CC makes sense. But 2 of them are less than 3 blocks apart, that is a waste of resources, especially when it ruins parkland.

https://www.capmetro.org/project-connect/system-plan/blue-line

You are reading it wrong. H2O is correct. There is one stop on Congress/4th and one stop on Trinity between Caesar Chavez and the lake. The "third stop" is just a pedestrian tunnel.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

You are reading it wrong. H2O is correct. There is one stop on Congress/4th and one stop on Trinity between Caesar Chavez and the lake. The "third stop" is just a pedestrian tunnel.

what is the purpose of the pedestrian tunnel? I'm hoping its not so we can cross the train tracks. I don't even see how a train can go thru there unless its elevated. yech. bury it!

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by JAM

what is the purpose of the pedestrian tunnel? I'm hoping its not so we can cross the train tracks. I don't even see how a train can go thru there unless its elevated. yech. bury it!

The train is buried... I'm confused what you are asking. The train runs underground underneath Trinity St. There is a subway station that has multiple access points.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by JAM

what is the purpose of the pedestrian tunnel? I'm hoping its not so we can cross the train tracks. I don't even see how a train can go thru there unless its elevated. yech. bury it!

Per tunnels are awesome. Have you been to Paris? Every stop has a labyrinth of underground tunnels so people can get to where they want to go faster.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by JAM

A one hundred lane I-35 would be useful too. Turning CC into a 6 lane freeway would be very useful for moving traffic thru downtown. But I think we both agree would be quite ugly. Kind of like steel tracks going over top of a beautiful lake.

Sure, a 100 lane slab of concrete and a graceful narrow arch over the lake, which gives pedestrians even more opportunities and views of the lake, are exactly the same.



You likely won't even be able to see the tracks (as I expect the bridge will have, you know, sides)

[JAM]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

The train is buried... I'm confused what you are asking. The train runs underground underneath Trinity St. There is a subway station that has multiple access points.

I'm saying it should stay buried until it reaches the other side of the lake, pop out on Riverside somewhere. Don't destroy our lake front and lake with an old, outdated technology called a train.

meanwhile, the robotaxi's are coming : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O69YEWpSacU

I still see 3 train stations (Convention, MACC, Waterfront) in this immediate area according to CapMetro marketing material here : https://www.capmetro.org/project-connect/system-plan/blue-line Why are they showing 3 if there is only 1?

[H2O]

Originally Posted by JAM

I'm saying it should stay buried until it reaches the other side of the lake, pop out on Riverside somewhere. Don't destroy our lake front and lake with an old, outdated technology called a train.

meanwhile, the robotaxi's are coming : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O69YEWpSacU

I still see 3 train stations (Convention, MACC, Waterfront) in this immediate area according to CapMetro marketing material here : https://www.capmetro.org/project-connect/system-plan/blue-line Why are they showing 3 if there is only 1?

Convention Center Station is for the Red Line Commuter Rail only and it already exists. The MACC/Rainey Station allows for transfers between the Orange and Red Lines. The Waterfront Station is on the south side of the river. If it didn't exist, everyone accessing the substantial future development on the Statesman and TxDOT office areas would have to walk from the MACC/Rainey Station across the bridge (or onside a long scary tunnel under the lake) or the Travis Heights Station (if there ever was a station to question it would be this one).

Tunnels are a lot more expensive than bridges and they are already planning a much longer one than ever anticipated on the orange line.

They are planning a signature sculptural bridge that will become a symbol of future Austin similar to the 360 bridge, that will have pedestrian amenities similar to the Pfluger Bridge. Once it is built, people will have trouble imagining Austin without it, similar to the boardwalk.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by JAM

I'm saying it should stay buried until it reaches the other side of the lake, pop out on Riverside somewhere. Don't destroy our lake front and lake with an old, outdated technology called a train.

I’m sorry, you seem to be under the mistaken (and stupid) impression that to build a bridge you need to drain the lake. You don’t.

Did the Pfluger pedestrian bridge “destroy the lake front and lake”?

No.


And you even seem to accept the idea of a pedestrian bridge here, in a previous post. A rail/pedestrian bridge looks almost exactly the same.

Originally Posted by JAM

meanwhile, the robotaxi's are coming : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O69YEWpSacU

No, they’re not.

[freerover]

Deleted

[JAM]

Originally Posted by H2O

Convention Center Station is for the Red Line Commuter Rail only and it already exists. The MACC/Rainey Station allows for transfers between the Orange and Red Lines. The Waterfront Station is on the south side of the river. If it didn't exist, everyone accessing the substantial future development on the Statesman and TxDOT office areas would have to walk from the MACC/Rainey Station across the bridge (or onside a long scary tunnel under the lake) or the Travis Heights Station (if there ever was a station to question it would be this one).

Tunnels are a lot more expensive than bridges and they are already planning a much longer one than ever anticipated on the orange line.

They are planning a signature sculptural bridge that will become a symbol of future Austin similar to the 360 bridge, that will have pedestrian amenities similar to the Pfluger Bridge. Once it is built, people will have trouble imagining Austin without it, similar to the boardwalk.

Thanks for the clarifications on the stations. So basically, they need to tear down the rowing center because it will be in the way of the train? Got some people here saying that it was going to be replaced by a pedestrian tunnel, sometimes I wonder if these guys even know what they are talking about, just like to argue I guess. Who has time for that petty sh*t?

I realize its more expensive to build a tunnel, totally get that. Just not sure if we should be ruining our park land for a train. There is only so much waterfront parkland available in the immediate downtown area. Many people think of trains as eye sores. What is the plan for the train from MACC to Waterfront? Elevated all the way?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by JAM

Thanks for the clarifications on the stations. So basically, they need to tear down the rowing center because it will be in the way of the train? Got some people here saying that it was going to be replaced by a pedestrian tunnel, sometimes I wonder if these guys even know what they are talking about, just like to argue I guess. Who has time for that petty sh*t?

I realize its more expensive to build a tunnel, totally get that. Just not sure if we should be ruining our park land for a train. There is only so much waterfront parkland available in the immediate downtown area. Many people think of trains as eye sores. What is the plan for the train from MACC to Waterfront? Elevated all the way?

You're just wrong man. It's going to be a very popular addition to the lake just like the S. Lamar pedestrian bridge.



Anyway, I think an interesting question is what the priorities are if more federal funds are available. I would say extending the orange line to Tech Ridge and Slaughter, then all the small stuff that got cut (red line improvements, green line extension, BRT lines etc.) and then the gold line LRT would be my lowest priority.

[dilliam]

Tbh, the boat house doesnt have that much public utility and the bridge will essentially create new park space anyway. I agree with freeover that the train/pedestrian bridge is going to be extremely popular.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

Anyway, I think an interesting question is what the priorities are if more federal funds are available. I would say extending the orange line to Tech Ridge and Slaughter, then all the small stuff that got cut (red line improvements, green line extension, BRT lines etc.) and then the gold line LRT would be my lowest priority.

I believe that by the "contract with the voters" the gold line would take priority over any additional red/green expansions, at least for any federal funds matched by Project Connect local taxes*. The Gold Line is in the overall 10B plan, it just got delayed from the 7B plan. Extra red line work (full double tracking) and green line to Elgin aren't even in the 10B plan (and honestly CoA money shouldn't go towards the Manor to Elgin segment).

*They did say (at the time they cut the red line double tracking from Project Connect) that there was the possibility to go for a future "core capacity" upgrade money from the feds. I'm not sure if the new bill expands that any, and even if so, presumably there would need to be some local match and a different source of that.

CapMetro, in its own budget (separate from project connect) did start the process of saving money for the Green line segment to Manor. There's not a lot there yet, and it probably would have to wait until after the first green segment, so it's probably not a good project for federal funds yet.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I believe that by the "contract with the voters" the gold line would take priority over any additional red/green expansions, at least for any federal funds matched by Project Connect local taxes*. The Gold Line is in the overall 10B plan, it just got delayed from the 7B plan. Extra red line work (full double tracking) and green line to Elgin aren't even in the 10B plan (and honestly CoA money shouldn't go towards the Manor to Elgin segment).

*They did say (at the time they cut the red line double tracking from Project Connect) that there was the possibility to go for a future "core capacity" upgrade money from the feds. I'm not sure if the new bill expands that any, and even if so, presumably there would need to be some local match and a different source of that.

CapMetro, in its own budget (separate from project connect) did start the process of saving money for the Green line segment to Manor. There's not a lot there yet, and it probably would have to wait until after the first green segment, so it's probably not a good project for federal funds yet.

They cut about 500 million in red line improvements that are def in the 10 bill plan but you’re right that the green line extension was not.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

They cut about 500 million in red line improvements that are def in the 10 bill plan but you’re right that the green line extension was not.

I'm 95% sure the red line double tracking/extended stations isn't in the "full system plan". It was cut from Project Connect entirely, not just removed from the 7B initial investment. That money instead went to the gold line light rail.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/...ro-another-train-proposed-gold-line.html

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/pio/document.cfm?id=339841

"Calhoun confirmed that means the second phase of the Red Line expansion with the platform and double tracking additions "would be part of a later effort.""