AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

I'm also contemplating a move from Austin if I can't find a better-paying job soon...

There aren't very many places with better job markets than Austin. We have a 6.9% unemployment rate, while Texas is at 8.0%, and the U.S. as a whole is at 10.0%.

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin...8/daily25.html

[PartyLine]

If you were in outside sales we might be looking for sales people in the near future.

[cvalkan]

Traffic light synchronization. It's not mass transit and it's not sexy, but I suspect most of us think Austin and central Texas could do a better job of synchronizing its lights. Lamar Blvd is nice and that's about it. I seem to recall that Guadalupe and Lavaca near downtown used to work fairly well but I haven't tested them lately.

Tonight I was driving Parmer/FM734 up to Cedar Park (finishing my sweep of all six Half Price Books locations) and of the 12 or so lights (up and back) I made it through 2 without having to stop. The suspicious among us might think that they were intentionally set that way to encourage travel on 183A toll. With no significant timed cross traffic (i.e., the cross traffic isn't coming from other lights), it should be possible to get the lights synchronized in at least one direction.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by cvalkan

Tonight I was driving Parmer/FM734 up to Cedar Park (finishing my sweep of all six Half Price Books locations) and of the 12 or so lights (up and back) I made it through 2 without having to stop. The suspicious among us might think that they were intentionally set that way to encourage travel on 183A toll. With no significant timed cross traffic (i.e., the cross traffic isn't coming from other lights), it should be possible to get the lights synchronized in at least one direction.

I make this drive routinely and never have to stop. My mother lives at Parmer and MoPac and my sister in Jonestown. I make the drive always in less than 25 minutes with only having to stop at the turn signal at Parmer onto 1431.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Scott Wood

Given how many suburban roads are divided, often for no apparent reason, I wonder how much of an issue that really is.

FWIW, the city's 2025 transportation plan has Burnet as divided: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/p...tp/central.pdf

Divided doesn't mean no turn lanes. In Texas, oddly enough, it doesn't even mean there's a median - a 'divided' roadway just means there's something in the middle, usually a center turn lane.

I think comparisons to Tri-Rail are a little unfair -- the line would still be anchored by UT/capital/downtown. A better analogue for Tri-Rail would be if it ran down MoPac the whole way, or to a lesser degree the Red Line.

You're right - the direct comparison is unfair. I was referring more to the general tone of "why are you such a downer? Any rail line anywhere will generate density and riders".

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Scott Wood

I would gladly leave my car at home if it were only a 20 minute penalty (and frequent headways) versus the hour penalty (mostly walking) that it takes to get to the crappy suburban office I work in. I'm far from typical, but it's not zero. :-)

One of the most common errors transit planners make is assuming that the general public is (almost) as enthusiastic about transit as they are. If that were the case, everybody in Westlake where I work would have at least tried my 105-minute commute-from-hell at least once.

In the real world, we need to look at other cities and see what worked and what didn't. Modest additional time for transit compared to car commutes is OK, if the transit ride is one seat and reliable. Significant additional time is not OK. It doesn't matter if every single poster in this forum would spend an additional 60 minutes a day to ride the train; they can't run the business on the 20 of us.

At that time, there will be a lot fewer people saying "you know, I'd much rather pay $10/gallon for gas, or even whatever it costs to run an electric car at higher electricity prices, and pay a lot for parking and maybe tolls, and whatever it costs to replace the car (at expensive-energy manufacturing prices, possibly with expensive batteries) more frequently due to the extra usage, than take an extra 20 minutes to get to work".

You misunderstand what I was saying. When gas hits $10/gallon, our economy will be struggling not to collapse - there will be no money for investments of any kind - not cars, not trains, not buses. Nothing. We'll be lucky if we can keep the streets from crumbling.

Cities that didn't waste a decade on commuter rail and rapid bus (both dependent on diesel fuel, by the way) will be better off. Hopefully Austin will get a rail spine or two that actually works before then, but if not, you can't rely on the $10 gallon effect to shift infrastructure demand - because every spare dollar we have will be spent just barely keeping ourselves moving at that point.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by austlar1

If times get really tough, there will probably be a lot of public works projects that, in an era of $10 a gallon gas, would likely be geared towards transportation projects. I know that sounds drastic, but the Great Depression produced MASSIVE infrastructure investment in roads, bridges, transit (NYC especially), and dams, etc.

Materials and labor in the Great Depression were incredibly cheap, all things considered. That's not a proper analogue at all.

It is short sighted to assume that because density does not exist now, it is never going to exist. In a rapidly growing area like Austin, rail can help shape density

Density likes to be with other density. If you build a rail line where there's no density now and no travel demand now, you should not expect there to be any in the future. What rail can and does do is help fill in the gaps with more, sometimes better, density; and it, of course, supports existing and planned density better than does the automobile, but the idea that you can stick a rail line down a row of warehouses and single-family neighborhoods that doesn't go to any major activity centers (or goes there, but much slower than the car does) and end up with Portland has been disproven many times over by now.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Density likes to be with other density. If you build a rail line where there's no density now and no travel demand now, you should not expect there to be any in the future. What rail can and does do is help fill in the gaps with more, sometimes better, density; and it, of course, supports existing and planned density better than does the automobile, but the idea that you can stick a rail line down a row of warehouses and single-family neighborhoods that doesn't go to any major activity centers (or goes there, but much slower than the car does) and end up with Portland has been disproven many times over by now.

You've contradicted yourself here. You have previously said that rail does not create density, but here you say that rail helps fill in gaps with more and better density? Can you keep your opinions straight please? You can't build a system like Portland's here - didn't I say that earlier? You couldn't have something like the MAX blue line here because drive time in a car will ALWAYS be faster than 20 stops outside the CBD on each side. You either have to limit the number of stops for a suburb to CBD line (which is what the 2000 plan did) to increase travel time to make it competitive with car travel or have a different objective (which is what I think Austin should do).

I don't like limiting the number of stops to serve commuters because then it doesn't truly serve as an urban/semi-urban line designed to function as an alternative for everyone. After you limit it to six or seven stops all with either park and ride or in the CBD itself, you've allowed it to morph into something only certain people can use. Remember, Austin passed the plan while everyone else rejected it. Obviously the people outside of Austin aren't going to use it, so why bother catering to them with park and ride stops? Austin deserves a plan that services it only (with perhaps limited access elsewhere) and is widespread/ambitious.

Another thing, Austin passed the plan despite getting barely any real service by the plan. The main point of the line was to ferry suburban workers into town from Howard and 1325. If anything, this shows that Austinites like the general idea of light rail and were willing to overlook the lack of real service in 2000 probably with hopes of future expansion. Give us that real service.

Also, please don't say Density LIKES to be with other density. Density doesn't LIKE anything... Personification really doesn't achieve anything here and just plain sounds weird.

[wwmiv]

This is how we can solve transportation issues: "Beam me up, Scotty"

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Cities that didn't waste a decade on commuter rail and rapid bus (both dependent on diesel fuel, by the way) will be better off. Hopefully Austin will get a rail spine or two that actually works before then, but if not, you can't rely on the $10 gallon effect to shift infrastructure demand - because every spare dollar we have will be spent just barely keeping ourselves moving at that point.

Not all buses and commuter rail run on diesel fuel.
M8


M7


Stadler GTW


Electric powered bus from catenary

[wwmiv]

Yeah, but which is a more politically viable energy source? Most electric vehicles are powered by lithium-ion batteries. The majority of lithium is located in Bolivia, Chile, and China. If you think dealing with the middle east is difficult, wait until you start having to deal with Bolivia and Chile.

[alexjon]

ETBs rock. They're quiet and don't rattle as much as a diesel bus.

[H2O]

What about Phoenix? I have never actually been there and don't know a lot about it, but it is my understanding that their new light rail line is 100% in street and has had very high ridership so far. I realize that Phoenix is a lot bigger than Austin, but my sense is that it has quite low density. According to Wikipedia, it's average density is a little higher than Austin. Those kind of statistics can be misleading, though. Does it have large tracts of reserve land within city limits like Austin? Are those density numbers city or metro?

[Scottolini]

Thursday, December 31, 2009, 1:43pm CST | Modified: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 1:45pm
Central Texas toll roads raked in $16M last quarter
Austin Business Journal

Central Texas toll roads generated 14 percent more last quarter than the same time in 2008, according to a Texas Department of Transportation report this month.

The Central Texas Turnpike System, which includes Loop 1, State Highway 45N and State Highway 130, collected $2 million more between September and November than the same months last year, according to the first quarter 2010 report released Dec. 16.

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin...8/daily32.html

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

Thursday, December 31, 2009, 1:43pm CST | Modified: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 1:45pm
Central Texas toll roads raked in $16M last quarter
Austin Business Journal

Central Texas toll roads generated 14 percent more last quarter than the same time in 2008, according to a Texas Department of Transportation report this month.

The Central Texas Turnpike System, which includes Loop 1, State Highway 45N and State Highway 130, collected $2 million more between September and November than the same months last year, according to the first quarter 2010 report released Dec. 16.

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin...8/daily32.html

I think alot of those two increases has to do with two things:

1) The increase in revenue = the scary prospect of being arrested due to non-payment of bills. Remember, they have started to get people. I've seen it happen.

2) The increase in TX tags = the ability to reduce your outstanding bills by getting a TX tag.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You've contradicted yourself here. You have previously said that rail does not create density, but here you say that rail helps fill in gaps with more and better density? Can you keep your opinions straight please? You can't build a system like Portland's here - didn't I say that earlier? You couldn't have something like the MAX blue line here because drive time in a car will ALWAYS be faster than 20 stops outside the CBD on each side. You either have to limit the number of stops for a suburb to CBD line (which is what the 2000 plan did) to increase travel time to make it competitive with car travel or have a different objective (which is what I think Austin should do).

The 2000 LRT line followed Portland's model. Why do you keep ignoring this? The Eastside line had fast and slow sections just like 2000 LRT would have. If you're not familiar enough with the 2000 plans, have I not provided enough links to go educate yourself?

As for density, what I said was that you can't stick a rail line in the middle of a corridor with no current travel demand and no density and expect density to grow up and fix your ridership. This is what South Florida showed us (and to a lesser extent San Jose).

If you run through a corridor with no real density but good activity centers on one end, you CAN get good results, IF AND ONLY IF you deliver some travel advantages to current users of the corridor. Either faster, or nearly as fast but more reliable will do it - but MUCH slower won't, even with the reliability.

This leaves several valid recipes for light rail success:

1. Portland. High speed in low density areas, low speed to get right up the gut and run by a bunch of activity centers and existing pockets of density. Would have matched the 2000 LRT plan. Note, "high speed" is relative; we're not talking about 70 mph here. This is also what most successful LRT cities have done. Dallas, Denver, etc. It doesn't absolutely require non-street-running segments in the 'fast' parts, but usually ends up that way.

2. Houston. Low speed in a corridor with extremely high travel demand, high density in at least pockets currently existing on the line, with some help from expensive parking or other advantages. The CoA urban rail plan attempts to meet this metric, although parts of Riverside will likely operate at medium-high speeds at the start.

The problem with a line up North Lamar or Burnet is that we're looking at speed like Houston's line without the built-in HIGH density pockets to make people be willing to put up with those low speeds. No, the Domain will never be high density - it will, overall, be medium-density if everything comes together as planned; and that's an AWFUL long ways from downtown compared to the distance between high-density nodes on Houston's line.

As for the 2000 and 2004 votes, are you really still arguing with me about this? A guy who was there, who's been on many media outlets talking about both elections, and the Red Line ever since? Didn't you say a little while back that you're in college now?

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by H2O

What about Phoenix? I have never actually been there and don't know a lot about it, but it is my understanding that their new light rail line is 100% in street and has had very high ridership so far. I realize that Phoenix is a lot bigger than Austin, but my sense is that it has quite low density. According to Wikipedia, it's average density is a little higher than Austin. Those kind of statistics can be misleading, though. Does it have large tracts of reserve land within city limits like Austin? Are those density numbers city or metro?

A quote from a blog I follow WRT Phoenix:

I forgot to mention a couple other things about METRO light rail. ASU eliminated its intercampus shuttle from the main Tempe campus to the downtown Phoenix campus, meaning that the 6,000 students on the downtown campus are to rely on the train. Although students ride for free, it keeps the trains nice and full.

The analogue here would be if UT had 6,000 students working/taking classes at Pickle, which they don't and likely never will, and if there wasn't any reasonably priced parking anywhere near UT's main campus, which, unfortunately, they keep building more of, not less of.

Still, they did a very good job with an all in-street service, but the portion of town they actually serve is clearly higher density than what we're talking about here in Austin (Allandale is extremely low density, and there's zero residential density north of 183 - until you get to the Domain, and then we have the whole issue of how dense that'll be, if ever).

I ran street view along a lot of the route and it looks like wide ROW (along the lines of what you could get north of 183 on Burnet, but not south) - high traffic speeds (could never find a speed limit sign, but roadway design implies at least 45 mph speed limit if not higher).

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by H2O

What about Phoenix? I have never actually been there and don't know a lot about it, but it is my understanding that their new light rail line is 100% in street and has had very high ridership so far. I realize that Phoenix is a lot bigger than Austin, but my sense is that it has quite low density. According to Wikipedia, it's average density is a little higher than Austin. Those kind of statistics can be misleading, though. Does it have large tracts of reserve land within city limits like Austin? Are those density numbers city or metro?

I don't know about reserved land they have mountain preserves but I dont think you can build on them. there are some midrise office buildings and lofts/condos outside of downtown Phoenix like down Camelback Road around the Biltmore Fashion Park area.

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by M1EK

A quote from a blog I follow WRT Phoenix:



The analogue here would be if UT had 6,000 students working/taking classes at Pickle, which they don't and likely never will, and if there wasn't any reasonably priced parking anywhere near UT's main campus, which, unfortunately, they keep building more of, not less of.

Still, they did a very good job with an all in-street service, but the portion of town they actually serve is clearly higher density than what we're talking about here in Austin (Allandale is extremely low density, and there's zero residential density north of 183 - until you get to the Domain, and then we have the whole issue of how dense that'll be, if ever).

I ran street view along a lot of the route and it looks like wide ROW (along the lines of what you could get north of 183 on Burnet, but not south) - high traffic speeds (could never find a speed limit sign, but roadway design implies at least 45 mph speed limit if not higher).

Speed limit on Burnet is 45 drove down it last night

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

There aren't very many places with better job markets than Austin. We have a 6.9% unemployment rate, while Texas is at 8.0%, and the U.S. as a whole is at 10.0%.

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin...8/daily25.html

Yeah, I know. I just haven't had stellar results in Austin in the past. I just finished my masters last month. But it's in European History (really useful). I spent 3 years full time at UT in the history Ph.D. program before getting pregnant, freaking out, dropping out, and then not finding a job like I hoped. Thus, I have very little relevant experience, and I'm 27. I'm really competent, but I'm not sure my resume really convinces potential employers of that, unfortunately. If I moved, it would be to somewhere like Washington DC where there is more work available in the archival/museum/research field, which is where I think my head is at and where my experience very clearly translates. For the past year and a half I've worked at Macy's, first at Highland Mall, now at the Domain.

Originally Posted by PartyLine

If you were in outside sales we might be looking for sales people in the near future.

I'd do anything at this point to make more money (otherwise it'll be a move, very soon, to rural North Carolina with my tail between my legs), but my only sales experience is in retail.

Originally Posted by PartyLine

Speed limit on Burnet is 45 drove down it last night

Indeed.