AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[enthurzan]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

At the risk of derailing this topic, this occurs because our monetary system is garbage. It’s literally designed to be inflationary (and thus deceptive).

True, but general, YoY inflation is not the primary driver of the inflation of transportation project costs. Inflation existed when things like the NYC Subway, MARTA, SEPTA, the Chicago L, etc., etc. all were built. The difference is that in that day and age the government could actually build massive transit projects. The cost of Project Connect has doubled in 2 years, and no work on the major lines has started. Inflation since 2021 has been ~8%. Let's say inflation cools down to 2% within a year, and then stays there for the next 9 years. That's still only 18%. Another reason to get work done faster. I don't believe it should take 10 years to get this project done. Ideally, crews should be working around the clock 24/7. You could reduce the timeline by 2/3 if you did just that.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by enthurzan

Let's say inflation cools down to 2% within a year, and then stays there for the next 9 years. That's still only 18%.

But PC absolute _cannot_ rely on that. It would be sheer malpractice.

They have to make cost projections assuming sustained higher inflation (especially construction inflation, not just consumer).

And if inflation comes down sooner, they can do an easy extension.

Originally Posted by enthurzan

Another reason to get work done faster. I don't believe it should take 10 years to get this project done. Ideally, crews should be working around the clock 24/7. You could reduce the timeline by 2/3 if you did just that.

It's going to be hard enough to find enough qualified people to do the construction. You want to triple it? And pay a bunch of people overtime?

Plus the actual construction isn't the entire schedule (it's only a few years, design/planning/testing/commissioning is the vast majority). Congratulations, you massively increased costs and cut the schedule by maybe a year or so.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by enthurzan

I'm talking about the construction of new lines. The orange and blue lines should have been started already. Blueprints should have been finished a long time ago, and dirt should have started moving. They should ideally be working as fast as possible, around the clock, until they run out of money(if), and then ask for more if they need it.

So start building everywhere, then WHEN you run out of money, you have 0 usable system to show for it.

Spend billions tunneling under the lake, then find out you can't actually put in an exit because of the CVC.

Great plan.

[enthurzan]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So start building everywhere, then WHEN you run out of money, you have 0 usable system to show for it.

Spend billions tunneling under the lake, then find out you can't actually put in an exit because of the CVC.

Great plan.

Yea, that's how Moses did it, and it worked great for him. To be fair, in later years, the NY legislature wised up to it, and didn't let him do it, but he did have access to quite a sum of federal funds for building his projects.

Plus, I don't see an alternative that is better. The alternative, which is what they are doing now, is standing around doing nothing but "community engagement meetings" (a waste of time & money!) for two years, with two more years of so-called "planning," and the project is already 100% over budget. Might as well get started building.

Also, in what world does the CVC block an exit? Most of the CVC height limits are quite high, a basic station isn't going to mess with that. I never said don't plan the thing, I said make it happen quickly. It doesn't take 4 years to plan a transit system, that is ridiculous.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by enthurzan

The alternative, which is what they are doing now, is standing around doing nothing but "community engagement meetings" (a waste of time & money!) for two years, with two more years of so-called "planning," and the project is already 100% over budget. Might as well get started building.

That's not true at all.

They've been doing design work this whole time. Did you attend any of the public remote meetings? They have and have shown detailed plot by plot diagrams, etc.

That's how they've uncovered some of these additional costs.

Originally Posted by enthurzan

Also, in what world does the CVC block an exit? Most of the CVC height limits are quite high, a basic station isn't going to mess with that.

The one at SoCo and Live Oak, that goes _underground_.

Yes it's stupid. Yes the CoA/CM/ATP still has to respect it.

[ATX2030]

Texas Legislature could derail Austin's transit expansion

KUT 90.5 | By Nathan Bernier
Published March 15, 2023 at 5:01 AM CDT

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2...nsit-expansion

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The one at SoCo and Live Oak, that goes _underground_.

Yes it's stupid. Yes the CoA/CM/ATP still has to respect it.

I am starting to think SoCo, as good as it is in theory, needs to removed as one of our light rail corridors.

First reason is the cost associated with being forced to tunnel it nearly all the way to Oltorf due to CVCs is ridiculous.

Second reason is something only long time Austinites will remember, but those living along SoCo are pretty much why Austin's 52 mile light rail plan from 2000 did not pass.

A little background, the vote passed in the COA, but failed by like a thousand votes out of the hundreds of thousands cast in the service area.

There was a cadre of good ole southsiders who vehemently opposed it though, because it was gonna take away the parking on Congress, amongst other assorted short-sighted selfish reasons.

It was a very well accepted fact at the time that their opposition was indeed the deciding factor in that election.

Imagine had that plan passed 23 years ago! Anyways, maybe we should be considering another corridor due to the obstacles running it down Congress seems to bring.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

I am starting to think SoCo, as good as it is in theory, needs to removed as one of our light rail corridors.

First reason is the cost associated with being forced to tunnel it nearly all the way to Oltorf due to CVCs is ridiculous.

Second reason is something only long time Austinites will remember, but those living along SoCo are pretty much why Austin's 52 mile light rail plan from 2000 did not pass.

A little background, the vote passed in the COA, but failed by like a thousand votes out of the hundreds of thousands cast in the service area.

There was a cadre of good ole southsiders who vehemently opposed it though, because it was gonna take away the parking on Congress, amongst other assorted short-sighted selfish reasons.

It was a very well accepted fact at the time that their opposition was indeed the deciding factor in that election.

Imagine had that plan passed 23 years ago! Anyways, maybe we should be considering another corridor due to the obstacles running it down Congress seems to bring.

I wholeheartedly agree! Long term, I still support LRT on South Congress, but given the complications, I think it should be the lowest of priorities for the initial investment.

Based on ridership projections alone, the priorities should be Orange Line as far north as possible, followed by the Blue Line to Pleasant Valley.

[lonewolf]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...dership-covid/

[LiveattheOasis]

Originally Posted by H2O

I wholeheartedly agree! Long term, I still support LRT on South Congress, but given the complications, I think it should be the lowest of priorities for the initial investment.

Based on ridership projections alone, the priorities should be Orange Line as far north as possible, followed by the Blue Line to Pleasant Valley.

That's fine, just put it on South Lamar. By 2030-32 with Brodie Oaks it will be the densest corridor outside of downtown/west campus in the city.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by LiveattheOasis

That's fine, just put it on South Lamar. By 2030-32 with Brodie Oaks it will be the densest corridor outside of downtown/west campus in the city.

It'll pale in comparison to North Burnet.

But it's moot. Neither S Lamar or Burnet were in the vote. They'll finish everything that was on Prop A before adding more extensions.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by LiveattheOasis

That's fine, just put it on South Lamar. By 2030-32 with Brodie Oaks it will be the densest corridor outside of downtown/west campus in the city.

Yeah, agree with Novacek. S Lamar won't be anything to sneeze at, but Uptown will take the cake as a true 2nd top dog dense core for the city.

[LiveattheOasis]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It'll pale in comparison to North Burnet.

But it's moot. Neither S Lamar or Burnet were in the vote. They'll finish everything that was on Prop A before adding more extensions.

Was thinking about something connectable within the central core area. No doubt the Domain will gather significant density, but it will be served by the redline and is quite a ways away from the current orange and blue lines.

Build it all ideally, but South Lamar seems a more cost effective way to connect quite a few folks, that's all.

[freerover]

South Lamar is a parallel path. The bigger priority should be an east-west line. We’re a long way from PC additions though.

[LiveattheOasis]

Originally Posted by freerover

South Lamar is a parallel path. The bigger priority should be an east-west line. We’re a long way from PC additions though.

You could take a line SW to NW from Brodie Oaks to the 51st and Berkman or connect it to the Gold Line and go to Highland. Just gotta the find the density for stops, which I always felt like Mueller had a bit more than most.

[ATXboom]

I like the exercise of thinking through connecting the most dense nodes: Domain, Downtown, West Campus, Mueler, Brodie Oaks, Highland, Riverside, ?

[drummer]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

I like the exercise of thinking through connecting the most dense nodes: Domain, Downtown, West Campus, Mueler, Brodie Oaks, Highland, ?

I agree.

[wwmiv]

I have long believed South Lamar is the better corridor long-term. The redevelopment potential is stronger, and the sites generally larger and more able to support denser redevelopment with higher population densities necessary to support high ridership. South Congress is only viable if you go as far as St. Elmo in the initial build.

TBH, an ideal system would have both.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I have long believed South Lamar is the better corridor long-term. The redevelopment potential is stronger, and the sites generally larger and more able to support denser redevelopment with higher population densities necessary to support high ridership. South Congress is only viable if you go as far as St. Elmo in the initial build.

TBH, an ideal system would have both.

The problem with S Lamar is that it’s so short and it just dead ends at 290. There’s no real spot to expand it from there, and so it’s not a good foundation for the rail system.

You could back up and head down Menchaca, but that either leaves you with a stub or not serving the bottom of Lamar. And Menchaca isn’t all that high in ridership or development potential.


Plus I imagine there’s more issues coordinating with TxDot (compared with Congress which is city jurisdiction until the very bottom).

When we get to extensions on the original plan, yeah then it should be in the mix. But it makes sense that it wasn’t originally.

[ATX2030]

PROJECT CONNECT
Project Connect debuts 5 scaled down light rail options
by: Kelsey Thompson

Posted: Mar 21, 2023 / 03:59 PM CDT

Updated: Mar 21, 2023 / 04:24 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/traffic...-rail-options/