AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

We keep coming back to this. Are you not aware that the 2000 line projected 46,000 riders per day - and that was before the Triangle filled up (half with UT students) and before all the downtown high-rises now under construction (lots of people working at UT and the Capitol)? That it would have dropped off passengers on the front door of UT and the Capitol and gone right through the heart of downtown? And still hit the same exact park-and-rides in the suburbs as does commuter rail (obvious if you know they shared the same alignment from Lamar/Airport northwestwards; but I'm beginning to think you don't).

Dude, the Feds loved it. The Feds. This wasn't naive optimism - the skeptics looked at it and said it would clearly and obviously work - we had a better starting alignment than Dallas or Houston in terms of employment density, and they did just fine.

You really have to let this crap about possible ridership here being low die. You have no idea.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/...ment_2915.html

It seems I keep feeding off what the feds say-- is that wrong?

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by alexjon

http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/...ment_2915.html

It seems I keep feeding off what the feds say-- is that wrong?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...?oid=oid:74354

To few people's surprise, the Red/Green alignment, connecting the high-growth Northwest Corridor with downtown, the Capitol, and UT, had by far the highest estimated ridership potential: nearly 46,000 daily boardings in 2007.

I believe you're looking at the difference between the minimal operable segment and the actual proposal made to voters. The MOS started up at Howard Lane, missing two or three extra park-and-rides, and ended at the CBD. The proposal to voters went from Howard (McNeil) to Ben White, picking up South Congress - and the study by Parsons/Brinkerhoff was analyzing the corridor all the way up to Leander (also as far as commuter rail goes to get its 1500 projected riders/day).

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...?oid=oid:74354

Is this where you get your numbers?

I believe you're looking at the difference between the minimal operable segment and the actual proposal made to voters. The MOS started up at Howard Lane, missing two or three extra park-and-rides, and ended at the CBD. The proposal to voters went from Howard (McNeil) to Ben White, picking up South Congress - and the study by Parsons/Brinkerhoff was analyzing the corridor all the way up to Leander (also as far as commuter rail goes to get its 1500 projected riders/day).

From the FTA:

Capital Metro is further proposing a phased implementation of the Austin Area LRT System with development of a 14.6 mile Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) from McNeil Road in north Austin to the CBD.

It continues on to say:

The 14.6 mile MOS is estimated to cost $739.0 million (in escalated dollars) and to serve 37,400 average weekday boardings by the year 2025.

Furthermore, it seems you may be including BRT numbers in your listing of 46,000, according to the Chronicle:

Total cost estimates, which Cap Metro says are intentionally generous, price out this starter line at $687.3 million, or $33.5 million per mile. The agency predicts that 46,000 riders a day will use the line when it opens in 2007. (The BRT portion could open sooner.)

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...?oid=oid:74354
I believe you're looking at the difference between the minimal operable segment and the actual proposal made to voters. The MOS started up at Howard Lane, missing two or three extra park-and-rides, and ended at the CBD. The proposal to voters went from Howard (McNeil) to Ben White, picking up South Congress - and the study by Parsons/Brinkerhoff was analyzing the corridor all the way up to Leander (also as far as commuter rail goes to get its 1500 projected riders/day).

Just looking at the differences between the two proposals, the regional rail stretches 15 miles further north than the light rail. The light rail stretches 3.25 miles further south than the regional rail. And the light rail proposal picked up the same railroad corridor at Lamar heading north. Just the last 5.25 miles to 4th St. in downtown Austin CBD follows city streets vs the railroad right of way.
How much of the predicted light rail ridership was coming from the extra 3.25 miles in South Austin?

Then compare the costs!
Light Rail stats:
$739 million
14.6 miles
37,400 passengers in 2025.

Regional Rail stats
$90 million
32 miles
2000 passengers in 2008-2009.

Cost per mile:
Light Rail = 50.6 million
Regional Rail = 2.8 million

Cost per passenger:
Light Rail (2025) =19,760
Regional Rail (2008) = 45,000
Assuming ridership doubles over 15 years, costs will be around the same.

Savings available for new rail projects:
739 - 90 = $649 million

CapMetro could still use the $649 million to build a light rail or streetcar project on the skipped over 8.5 miles on Guadalupe, Congress, and Lamar; and still have money left, approximately $218.9 million, over to build regional rail elsewhere, like to Manor and Elgin.

Some math:
50.6 x 8.5 = 430.1
649 - 430.1 = 218.9

At $3 million per mile, assuming good track conditions, that $218.9 million could build 73 more miles of regional rail.

It's not like CapMetro has lost that $649 million it hasn't spent forever. It's still around.
But instead of having just 14 miles of track, CapMetro could have 113.5 miles of track.

More math:
8.5 + 32 + 73 = 113.5

The FRA report suggest strongly the suburban sections of the light rail plan wasn't as dense as the CBD. There was a good chance the Feds wouldn't have help financed those areas. The cheaper regional rail solution north of Lamar and railroad corridor might mean more light rail tracks within the city limits of Austin in the future.

That's why I suggest waiting to see what CapMetro's future plans will be. I repeat, a mass transit system isn't built within 10 years. It grows as time passes. Start small and grow upon that success. With the FTA now considering interconnections to the entire rail system, the increase in ridership caused by having more stations and destinations, may make the 8.5 mile light rail/streetcar system more eligible for federal matching funds. The regional rail might end up being a great thing after all.

[alexjon]

I can't find where they're getting their ridership projections-- as proposed and based on the stats from that day, LRT would be forced to carry more than 1/3rd of the population and workers in the alignment area.

[M1EK]

electicron, you anonymous misleader you, the reason LRT would have picked up so many more riders is that it actually would have gone to UT, the Capitol, and right through downtown. (It didn't hurt that it also went by the densest residential sections of Austin).

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Is this where you get your numbers?

I was on the UTC when this came up, and we were getting fed numbers by the city and Cap Metro directly from the study that the Chronicle references.

And no, most of the numbers didn't come from the short BRT section (that was likely to be light rail when all was said and done anyways - had Krusee not forced them to the polls before they were done baking, they might have figured out a way to make that LRT as was always the eventual plan - the bridge was an issue that couldn't be figured out in the time they had left).

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I was on the UTC when this came up, and we were getting fed numbers by the city and Cap Metro directly from the study that the Chronicle references.

I don't see how the similar alignments between the one listed with the FTA and the one shown in that article could have such wildly different ridership projections. The 2025 numbers given to the FTA say 37,400, so on opening, the Austin line would have to post larger numbers, which doesn't usually happen outright on a project this scale. The "largest first day ridership" seems to be misleading and probably on purpose.

Actually, the FTA shows the proposed line that failed in this report: http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/...ment_3104.html

It shows 37,400 in 2025.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

electicron, you anonymous misleader you, the reason LRT would have picked up so many more riders is that it actually would have gone to UT, the Capitol, and right through downtown. (It didn't hurt that it also went by the densest residential sections of Austin).

As I wrote earlier, CapMetro will still have over $600 million to build light rail by UT, Capitol, thru the densest residential neighborhoods, and through downtown.

The regional rail project only costs $90 million, not over $700 million.
Why can't CapMetro build light rail from downtown to Lamar & the regional rail RR crossing?

Is it a lack of funds? If CapMetro can't afford 8 miles of light rail now, how could it afford 15 miles of light rail then?

One would think converting the northern half the prior light rail proposal would have made it easier to build the southern half as light rail.
And, I still think that's possible, and what will most likely happen.

Just not first........

[alexjon]

And on the upside, if the commuter rail is an epic failure (since it stops so far from the CBD and employment when compared to systems like those in Sea-- oh wait), people would certainly be prepared to sack it and replace it with LRT.

[M1EK]

No, they won't. If commuter rail turns out to be a 'success' (carrying 2000 riders per day, let's say), the call will go out to build more commuter lines which still have the same fatal flaw (like the line to Elgin).

If commuter rail turns out to be a 'failure', it'll do what it did in South Florida: destroy momentum for rail here for a generation ("we tried it and it didn't work"). This isn't helped by the fact that the anonymous misleader electricron's buddies like Lyndon Henry keep trying to rebrand it as light rail.

The reason CM can't build light rail just to the crossing at Airport/Lamar is that it would only get the urban half of the ridership and still require transfers. You can't justify taking away a traffic lane each way on Lamar/Guadalupe for anything less than the 30-45,000 riders that the 2000 LRT would have brought with it; but you'd never get there with this unholy graft of light+commuter rail in a city where it's still so easy to drive.

Again, folks, what CM is doing is not, despite electicron's lies to the contrary, what Houston and Dallas and Portland and everybody else did. All of those cities found one good rail corridor that went directly to and by a bunch of major activity centers without requiring transfers and in each and every one of those cases, left the pre-existing rail ROW where necessary to run trains in streets to get to the final destination(s) without requiring shuttling (some of these cities built the entire LRT start in new street runningway, of course).

You can't convince choice commuters to leave their car behind for a three-seat ride (drive to park-and-ride, train, shuttle-bus). You CAN convince them for a two-seat or one-seat ride (drive to park-and-ride, ride LRT straight to office; or walk to LRT and take it to office).

The commuter rail plan has essentially nobody within a nice walk of its stations on the resdential end OR the office end.

[Saddle Man]

Well said Mike.

[alexjon]

So, uh, in regards to there being no office space close by-- isn't the Frost Bank Tower really close?

As far as this "LRT or nothing" ideology goes, you may get your wish--according to Light Rail Now!, the FRA is targeting CapMetro for new rules and oversight.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The commuter rail plan has essentially nobody within a nice walk of its stations on the resdential end OR the office end.

SIGH!

M1EK:

It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, by several different people, that the map you keep posting is incorrect.

It is exactly 1/4 mile from the center of the Convention Center platform to the east side of Congress Avenue (if you don't believe me, measure it yourself). The circles on your map are 1/4 mile DIAMETER or 1/8 mile radius.



Three of the largest office buildings Downtown (Frost Bank, 301 Congress & 500 Block Congress aka T. Stacy project) lie within the 'magic' circle.

The 6th & Congress intersection is just beyond the 1/4 mile radius.

Once the station is moved to Brazos, virtually all of the large CBD office buildings will be within 1/4 mile of the station.

Why do you persist in accusing everyone who posts verifiable facts, that do not support your agenda, of attempting to mislead people?

[SecretAgentMan]

Cap Metro does not have $649 M just sitting in the bank, nor did it ever have the $739 M. They were relying on receiving 80% of the funding for the 2000 proposal from the FTA. That was possible under the Clinton administration. After 11/2000, the Bush administration reduced the maximum Federal share to 50%. Mike Krusee also punished Cap Metro for loosing the 2000 referendum by passing a bill that required Cap Metro to return 1/4 cent of their sales tax to member districts until they received a positive vote on rail. This amounted to $250 M between 2000 and 2004. During this time, costs (labor and fuel) grew, while revenues (due the the Bush / McCain anti-transit policies) shrunk.

Cap Metro was faced with putting together a proposal that could win in 2004, or risk being being bled to death. They chose to go the conservative route with a proposal they knew they could win.

Anybody who supports transit should be voting for Obama. McCain has a horrible record of voting against transit, even in his home state of Arizona and has done his best to dismantle Amtrak.

I'm SAM IAM, and I approve this mesage. (This message not endorsed by the CIA, the Bush/ McCain/Palin conspiracy or the Republican Party)

[NormalgeNyus]

watch out secret. i bet the first sentence in m1ek next message, he is giong to try and state you are misleading people, but he wont have anything to back his view up. there are many people on here with facts and great ideas yet m1ek keeps trying to put them all down with the same old line "your misleading people". how are you mis leading when you are posting facts?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Cap Metro does not have $649 M just sitting in the bank, nor did it ever have the $739 M. They were relying on receiving 80% of the funding for the 2000 proposal from the FTA. That was possible under the Clinton administration. After 11/2000, the Bush administration reduced the maximum Federal share to 50%. Mike Krusee also punished Cap Metro for loosing the 2000 referendum by passing a bill that required Cap Metro to return 1/4 cent of their sales tax to member districts until they received a positive vote on rail. This amounted to $250 M between 2000 and 2004. During this time, costs (labor and fuel) grew, while revenues (due the the Bush / McCain anti-transit policies) shrunk.

Cap Metro was faced with putting together a proposal that could win in 2004, or risk being being bled to death. They chose to go the conservative route with a proposal they knew they could win.

Anybody who supports transit should be voting for Obama. McCain has a horrible record of voting against transit, even in his home state of Arizona and has done his best to dismantle Amtrak.

I'm SAM IAM, and I approve this mesage. (This message not endorsed by the CIA, the Bush/ McCain/Palin conspiracy or the Republican Party)

You have a great point. One could look at the cheaper regional rail CapMetro is building and about to put into service as the means to restore the full sales tax revenues. So, in a few years it can fund the light rail project in the future. Without the full revenues from sale taxes, it never could fund light rail.
I see the streetcar proposal being proposed as just the first of many future streetcar lines proposals, followed up by longer light rail lines proposals in the future. As for extending the regional rail along 4th to Brazos and points further west along 4th, I believe it can and will be done. To design an efficient Intermodal Transit Center, one needs to know before designing and building it all the anticipated modes that will be using it. Which explains why it wasn't included with the initial regional rail build. But it can be easily added in the future when other modal plans are further developed.
Train tracks and lines will last for decades longer than the two decades transit agencies can plan for in advance and ask for federal funding. And transit agencies also have to show local funding is available to match the federal funds. That's why there's not much in CapMetro's future plans today. But, five and ten years in the future, CapMetro can add future projects to its planning process, because they will have five and ten more years of sales tax revenues, both on hand and in the future, that can be used for future funding matching for new projects.
I'm not totally against using regional rail vs light rail, or the opposite point of view, as I believe both types of rail have their own strengths and weaknesses.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by alexjon

So, uh, in regards to there being no office space close by-- isn't the Frost Bank Tower really close?

No. It is the closest office building of note, but it's past the quarter-mile (radius); i.e. nowhere near "really close". Most of the major offices downtown are a half or even three-quarters of a mile away from the stop.

As far as this "LRT or nothing" ideology goes, you may get your wish--according to Light Rail Now!, the FRA is targeting CapMetro for new rules and oversight.

Part of the reason I kept hammering Lyndon Henry about his attempt to co-opt light rail's good brand with this piece of crap is that something like this would inevitably happen. "Oh, you say this is really a LIGHT railway? But you're sharing track with heavy freight? Let's look a little more closely".

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

SIGH!

M1EK:

It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, by several different people, that the map you keep posting is incorrect.

It's the city's map, from OnTrack, a newsletter the planning folks put out two issues of in 2004.

Numerous occasions? Several different people? Really? Cite.

Google shows 0.3 to 4th/Congress and Half a mile to 6th/Congress

And there's no plan on record to "move the stop" to 4th and Brazos. There's an eventual POSSIBILITY of that happening, which I've even talked about here.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Cap Metro does not have $649 M just sitting in the bank, nor did it ever have the $739 M. They were relying on receiving 80% of the funding for the 2000 proposal from the FTA. That was possible under the Clinton administration. After 11/2000, the Bush administration reduced the maximum Federal share to 50%. Mike Krusee also punished Cap Metro for loosing the 2000 referendum by passing a bill that required Cap Metro to return 1/4 cent of their sales tax to member districts until they received a positive vote on rail. This amounted to $250 M between 2000 and 2004. During this time, costs (labor and fuel) grew, while revenues (due the the Bush / McCain anti-transit policies) shrunk.

Cap Metro was faced with putting together a proposal that could win in 2004, or risk being being bled to death. They chose to go the conservative route with a proposal they knew they could win.

Anybody who supports transit should be voting for Obama. McCain has a horrible record of voting against transit, even in his home state of Arizona and has done his best to dismantle Amtrak.

I'm SAM IAM, and I approve this mesage. (This message not endorsed by the CIA, the Bush/ McCain/Palin conspiracy or the Republican Party)

This is actually PRETTY close to the truth. Especially about McCain vs. Obama (Biden is the strongest rail advocate around). However:

1. The real punishment Krusee dealt was forcing the 2000 vote early. CM was prepping for what seemed like a May 2001 election before he wrote the rail election law.

2. CM's choice in 2004 was to suck up to Krusee - and what, precisely, did it get us? No path, ever, to a good urban rail system. How is that not worse than being bled to death?