HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #381  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2008, 9:15 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
You two guys still don't get it - it's a dead end. Not a step in the right direction; not even a step sideways; it's a step backwards.

To build something that actually doesn't suck we now have to back up and tear up a bunch of stuff.

It's not purely a technological problem either -- had we decided to implement commuter rail on the Elgin corridor, then the necessary right-of-way for the only possible high-ridership high-performance rail corridor from suburban to urban parts would still have been preserved. But this commuter rail line, this one we actually built, is squatting right on top of that prime real estate.

There's no other place to put light rail that will work - the one McCracken is pushing is half-assed to the max (which is why I'm saying 10,000/day will be a 'success'). And that's about the best possible alternative we have left.

This isn't a matter of accepting what we have and building on it - you can't build a good house on a shitty foundation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #382  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2008, 12:12 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,738
Then So be it. Life goes on... You've made it pointedly clear... There's no point in crying over spilled milk. We will not have light rail, the city will just have to evolve over time to lessen the use of cars other than rail.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #383  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2008, 2:17 AM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
If they would run a line from the airport down riverside, down congress as close to the capitol as possible, over to lamar/guadalupe all the way to the triangle and have a transfer to commuter rail. I realize a transfer cuts a lot of the would be riders from the burbs, but maybe over time, or real quickly, how much better LR is and tear up the tracks and fix this mess.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #384  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2008, 2:11 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
If they would run a line from the airport down riverside, down congress as close to the capitol as possible, over to lamar/guadalupe all the way to the triangle and have a transfer to commuter rail. I realize a transfer cuts a lot of the would be riders from the burbs, but maybe over time, or real quickly, how much better LR is and tear up the tracks and fix this mess.
The line we're going to try to float isn't going up Guadalupe/Lamar because the low travel demand doesn't justify taking a lane away on streets that are that busy. It's going out to Mueller, and in some spots without even getting reserved guideway out there either.

See, it's a catch-22 now - can't take away the lane without the suburban riders; can't get the suburban riders without taking away the lane.

So there's really no option going forward in which people can realize how great LR is, because at best we're going to build half-assed sort-of-LR in a part of the city where far fewer people live now or will when built-out (Mueller, at peak, will be nothing compared to Triangle+HydePark). But it's still better than Capital Metro's stupid idea of a completely stuck-in-traffic commuter rail circulator; adding in Riverside and reserved guideway down there at least brings a few more thousand potential passengers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #385  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2008, 3:52 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,821
http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/other/04/15/0415privatejet

IATION

Luxury jet hangars landing in Austin?
City Council will consider the proposal in coming weeks.
By Kathy Adams

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF


Tuesday, April 15, 2008

A California developer is looking to build a spate of luxury hangars in Austin aimed at serving corporate jets and attracting business to the area.

The Austin City Council is expected to vote in the coming weeks on a proposal by Ascend Development to build secure, luxury hangars, a runway and other structures on 12 acres at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.

The Ascend project has the potential to make Austin even more appealing to corporations, said Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce member Dan Sullivan, who represents general aviation interests for the chamber. Many large companies own private jets or charter private jet services, and they need a place to park, refuel and obtain other services, he said.

"Now we will have places where people can park an aircraft, and that will put us in a much better position when attracting companies or businesses to come to Austin," Sullivan said.

The terms of the lease between Ascend Development and the city will not be made public until the council takes up the proposal, probably on April 24 or May 8.

Signature Flight Support and Atlantic Aviation now provide hangar space, concierge service and fueling for small-aircraft owners, corporate jets and other members of the general aviation community, which excludes commercial airlines.

If approved, Ascend's development will expand the hangar space available and provide more high-end services and facilities.

Ascend Development declined to comment, but its Web site says it plans to construct the hangars through its ParkAvion division. The development's "58 private bays will feature sleek, modern exteriors and top of the line amenities," including remote-controlled doors, customizable office space and "dramatic window walls," according to the Web site.

Though Ascend's facilities would alleviate Austin's need for more high-end, corporate-focused airport services, it would still leave a segment of the general aviation community unsatisfied, said pilot Jay Carpenter, a Texas Aviation Association board member.

When Robert Mueller Municipal Airport and Austin Executive Airport closed in 1999, the general aviation community lost hangar space and most other services, according to airport statistics.

High fuel prices, hangar waiting lists, rent and insurance costs now make it difficult for aircraft owners to get what they need, Carpenter said.

Signature and Atlantic provide excellent service, he said, but there's demand for repair shops and more self-service and low-cost options, such as a self-fuel station.

"I love Signature," said Carpenter, who leases a hanger for about $315 per month and pays $140 a year in insurance. "It's four-star service, and that's great, but sometimes I want Motel 6 service. I don't need to stay at a Four Seasons every time I fly."

The city should do more to promote general aviation development and ease restrictions that are prohibitive for general aviation businesses wanting to open at Bergstrom, Sullivan said. He said some of the city's insurance, fire and other regulations are stricter than at other airports in the state and nationwide.

Austin's general aviation community contributes $89.3 million annually to the local economy, according to a 2005 Texas Department of Transportation study.

Expanding general aviation facilities and services could garner millions more, returning as much as $7 for every dollar invested, Carpenter said.

"They don't really care to invest in general aviation development at our airport, and they're missing the boat, because if they do, the return on the dollar is huge," he said.


Austin general aviation facts

Employment: 612 people

Annual payroll: $23,084,000

Total output: $89,301,000

Fuel prices:

Austin Signature $6.09 full-service

Georgetown $4.00 full-service

Taylor $3.62 full-service

Hangar space:

Austin-Bergstrom International Airport 129

Robert Mueller Municipal Airport

and Austin Executive Airport (closed)335

Hangar waiting list: About five years

Source: Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce member Dan Sullivan, Texas Department of Transportation's 2005 Economic Impact of General Aviation in Texas study
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #386  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2008, 4:11 AM
bgrn198 bgrn198 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 60
If light rail gives you heartburn MIEK then DON'T RIDE IT sit in traffic for two hours.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #387  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2008, 7:44 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgrn198 View Post
If light rail gives you heartburn MIEK then DON'T RIDE IT sit in traffic for two hours.
Count to 10, M1EK.
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #388  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2008, 3:59 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
You two guys still don't get it - it's a dead end. Not a step in the right direction; not even a step sideways; it's a step backwards.

To build something that actually doesn't suck we now have to back up and tear up a bunch of stuff.

It's not purely a technological problem either -- had we decided to implement commuter rail on the Elgin corridor, then the necessary right-of-way for the only possible high-ridership high-performance rail corridor from suburban to urban parts would still have been preserved. But this commuter rail line, this one we actually built, is squatting right on top of that prime real estate.

There's no other place to put light rail that will work - the one McCracken is pushing is half-assed to the max (which is why I'm saying 10,000/day will be a 'success'). And that's about the best possible alternative we have left.

This isn't a matter of accepting what we have and building on it - you can't build a good house on a shitty foundation.
You right, I still don't get it. Can you provide a map of the 2000 LRT proposed route? I would like to see how the commuter line interferes with the original LRT proposal.

Interesting LRT study here : http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2000-...stinltrail.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #389  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2008, 6:45 PM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
I can say for one, JAM, that this particular "interesting LRT study" falls flat due to its reasoning that density is uniform.

For example, the listed population Density for Seattle is 6,901 people per square mile, but according to census data, you have 22 to 44,000 people per square mile living in areas like Belltown and the U District.

In Austin, if you look at this: http://www.austinchamber.com/images/...PopDensity.pdf you realize that the density follows a more or less straight line, something the Commuter Rail is following. Remember, the minimum threshold for transit usage in a corridor is multiple nodes of ~6,200 (or 6,700? I think I got that right.) people per square mile, something that is definitely within the corridor the CR is following.

Furthermore, the problem with Portland is that while other cities have built more freeways, Portland has not. They've done improvements, but overall, there is no way to get down the Banfield Corridor into the central city and as such, car usage on that corridor goes up with population growth. Light Rail simply does not go as far as the scope of the traffic study does. For the purposes of maintaining Portland's urban character, it never will, and those people contributing to that daily traffic are simply negligible statistics in the realm of transit planning in the Portland-Vancouver area.
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta

Last edited by alexjon; Apr 19, 2008 at 7:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #390  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2008, 1:10 AM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM View Post
You right, I still don't get it. Can you provide a map of the 2000 LRT proposed route? I would like to see how the commuter line interferes with the original LRT proposal.

Interesting LRT study here : http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2000-...stinltrail.pdf
TPPF are hacks and liars. Seriously.

The 2000 LRT route would have used the same right-of-way from Leander all the way to Airport/Lamar, at which point LRT would have run down Lamar, then Guadalupe, then switching to either Colorado or Congress through downtown.

I don't have map handy at my kitchen table - but there's examples in other threads I've posted to real recently.

Without that high-speed ROW to the northwest suburbs, there's no way to build a LRT starter line here anymore that will get substantial federal participation and will have enough demand to justify taking away a travel lane on Lamar and Guadalupe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #391  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2008, 8:41 PM
southsideatx04's Avatar
southsideatx04 southsideatx04 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 175
Why wasn't South Austin considered to have any commuter rail or any kind of rail proposal? Was it the lack of tracks or population?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #392  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2008, 10:03 PM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 346
Rail Transit Workshop - Tuesday!

Please join us for a public workshop concerning Downtown mobility and public transit connections between Downtown and significant city destinations.


Downtown Austin Plan – Mobility Workshop
Tuesday April 22nd, 2008
5:30 to 8:00 p.m.
First Floor Conference Room, Town Lake Center Building
712 Barton Springs Road
Austin, Texas 78704


The Phase One Report of the “Downtown Austin Plan,” which can be viewed at http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/downtown/...t.htm#dntnplan, identified access to and mobility within Downtown as one of the most significant challenges facing Downtown Austin. The Austin City Council has asked ROMA Design Group, the lead consultant for the Downtown Austin Plan, to conduct an in-depth study of Downtown mobility, potential public transit connections within Downtown, and potential public transit connections between Downtown and other significant destinations within our City. At this workshop, the ROMA team will present its findings to date and will receive public input regarding this important work.

Parking is available either in the garage behind the Town Lake Center building or across the street at the Palmer Events Center parking garage.

Questions concerning this workshop should be directed to Rhonda Price, Group Solutions RJW, 448-4459.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #393  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 2:38 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by southsideatx04 View Post
Why wasn't South Austin considered to have any commuter rail or any kind of rail proposal? Was it the lack of tracks or population?
The 2000 election was rushed by Krusee, and CM couldn't come up with a way to get across the river that quickly, so they threw in BRT on South Congress. Many rail plans have included proposals for rail service on South Congress and some DMU-style service on the UP line up to Seaholm (which would, of course, be useless since it's as far or farther away from employment centers as is the Convention Center).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #394  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 8:01 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Talk of higher gas tax

By Ben Wear | Monday, April 21, 2008, 10:59 AM

Democratic U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas, speaking to the Texas Transportation Forum today at the Hilton in downtown Austin, called for increasing both the state and federal gas tax rate.

The federal rate, which is the one Johnson has at least some control over as a member of Congress, should go up at least five cents, she said.

Currently, the state gas tax is 20 cents a gallon and the federal is 18.4 cents a gallon. Neither has increased since the early 1990s, when Democrats controlled Congress and the Texas Legislature, and lived in the White House and governor’s mansion.

Does that mean that a federal gas tax increase depends on a Democrat being elected president this fall, Johnson was asked.

“I think no matter who is president, when you look at the inventory of our infrastructure, you have to see the need,” Johnson said.

Johnson, who for 16 years has served on the 75-member House committee that governs transportation, also supports toll roads and allowing private companies in some cases to take them over.

“It’s a real tough choice when you have no money,” she said in the speech to the forum, which was put on by TxDOT. “If it hadn’t been for tolls, we wouldn’t have had anymore roads.

In her speech, Johnson said she was aghast when U.S. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, recently called for suspending the federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day this year. That would have cost the federal highway fund more than $8 billion.

“I told him that was the worst idea I ever heard,” she said. “I hope he doesn’t say much more about it. We don’t have enough money coming in now.”

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...r_gas_tax.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #395  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 9:47 PM
paulsjv paulsjv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 520
^^^ What a freak'n crock! We don't need more taxes like this!! Cut damn spending and reallocate the money where it is needed. Makes me so mad to hear politicians say things like this. grr!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #396  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2008, 3:43 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,327
From the Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte..._miles_of.html

ROMA to recommend 14 miles of light rail in Central Austin

By Ben Wear | Tuesday, April 22, 2008, 09:57 AM


A consultant hired by the city is recommending a 14-mile light rail or “ultra-light rail” system for Central Austin, not streetcars as proposed earlier by Capital Metro, according to Austin City Council Member Brewster McCracken. The system would run from the airport to downtown, through the University of Texas and then east to the emerging Mueller development.

The route is essentially the same one that McCracken and Austin Mayor Will Wynn have been talking about over the past six months or so. The proposal comes as a “transit task force” formed by Wynn and state Sen. Kirk Watson moves into the final stages of creating a “decision tree” to analyze rail proposals.

That group would almost surely analyze this proposal. But it is not clear if such an examination could occur quickly enough for the light rail proposal — assuming it passes muster with the Wynn-Watson group and then the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization — to be put before voters in November. Wynn has said he would like to have a rail election this year.

McCracken, at least, believes that the proposal can quickly make it through that gauntlet to a public vote in November.

“Yes, I think that’s likely,” he said.

The recommendation, to be released this evening at a community forum, will not include a specific cost estimate, McCracken said. However, McCracken said that the cost would be somewhere in the broad range between $5 million a mile and $30 million a mile, depending mostly on how many underground utility lines would have to be relocated for such a project. That would put it between $70 million and $420 million.

Those figures, he said, likely do not include the cost of the cars.

The diesel-powered cars Capital Metro has purchased for its “red line” commuter service from Leander to downtown, set to open in a few months, cost about $6 million apiece and the agency bought six of them to start with. But light rail cars typically cost less than that.

According to McCracken, the recommendation from the ROMA Design Group will propose putting double tracks (allowing travel in both directions simultaneously) from Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and then heading west on Riverside Drive. The route would turn north at Congress Avenue (although there could be a spur to the parking-poor Long Center, McCracken said), cross the Ann Richards Bridge and then go through downtown either on Congress or San Jacinto Street.

Then it would pass through UT, turning east at Dean Keeton Street and going along Manor Road to the Mueller development.

A major criticism of the light rail plan that voters rejected in 2000 was that it would take street lanes away from car traffic. Not so, in this case, McCracken said, although the tracks would be in “dedicated lanes” segregated from cars. The space for the tracks, McCracken said, would come from available right of way on Riverside east of Interstate 35. Then, downtown, the tracks would run on pavement currently occupied by parked cars, he said.

The tracks, McCracken said, might take two lanes from the bridge over Lady Bird Lake, he said, although alternatively it could use the bridge space now taken up by sidewalks. In that case, a sidewalk alternative bridge, such as was added to the South First Street bridge, would continue pedestrian and bicycle access across the lake on Congress.

Light rail, as opposed to the commuter rail opening late this year or early next year, is generally powered by electricity and has a system or overhead wires that connect to devices on the top of the cars called “catenaries.” Light rail cars run faster than streetcars, but at speeds comparable to the car traffic around them.

Although having dedicated lanes would spare the light rail cars from delay associated with car traffic, they would still have to stop for red lights on city streets.

Capital Metro officials have said they have no money left in the kitty to pay for more rail. So where would the money come from to build this?

McCracken said that city officials tonight will discuss a funding scenario that includes taking about a quarter of Capital Metro’s 1 percent sales tax (although the agency has indicated it needs it all for current bus and rail expenses), contributions from the city and other local government, from property taxes likely to be generated by new development along the line and potentially from airport bonds.

“We think it is possible to build this with no new taxes,” McCracken said.

Details will be revealed at the forum this evening, which begins at 5:30 p.m. at the Town Lake Center Building, 712 Barton Springs Road.

Click for map
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte..._miles_of.html
__________________
Conform or be cast out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #397  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2008, 3:59 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
Other than tearing up the CM tracks and starting again this is probably the best we can do right now. This should get our support, then maybe somewhere down the line we could tear up the red line and run light rail down Lamar or Guadalupe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #398  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2008, 4:10 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
very cool. So no need to remove auto lanes, just street parking. Great idea. Check out the map that Kevin linked to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #399  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2008, 4:16 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,821
some feedback from the story posted by Kevin...




Permalink | Comments (14) | Post your comment Categories: Passenger rail

Comments
Click here to report comment abuse.

By HK

April 22, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

30 million per mile? Are you kidding me?

By todd

April 22, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

I would like it as long as it is not run by Cap Metro. If they can’t handle buses, then how can they handle a rail?

It needs to be built and operated by a private company and not by a public entity. If it is run by a govt entity, it will become a glorified socialistic jobs program.

By Mozartsopera

April 22, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

This might help the wealthy condo owners downtown get to the airport. But they can do that with the Cap Metro bus. What about the people of Round Rock, Pflugerville, S. Austin, Kyle and Buda who live there and work downtown. Start with a light rail route that will actually benefit the people. I came here from Portland, Oregon; a city with light rail, streetcars, and commuter rail. If the feds don’t help them build it they build it themselves. It is designed to help the suburbs not help only those who live downtown. Do it right and you can have my car. Do it wrong and I’m buying a Hummer with a gas and oil leak.

By Common Sense

April 22, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

So is the point of this rail system to take people from downtown to places nobody wants to live? If so, this is perfect.

By Ed

April 22, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

You gotta be kidding me. They cant even plan or much less finish the roads situation here in Austin as it is.
“Beam me up Scotty, I’m ready……..

By Richard

April 22, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Interesting, it was voted down once, so they call it something else and try again. Guess they really think austinites are really stupid. Especially where they say, they believe they can do this without a tax increase.

It it is so viable, why dont private individuals pay for it and reap the reward?

By Astntom

April 22, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Fascinating that Roma thinks that this can be done for possibly as low as $5 million per mile, when Phoenix just finished theirs and the cost was $70 million per mile.

This horrendous idea is frought with problems: (1) Earlier studies showed the Congress bridge is NOT capable of withstanding “Light” rail (which, at 98,000 lbs, is NOT light at all); (2) Light Rail will NOT be able to do anything more than Rapid Bus can do at a fraction of the cost; (3) Light Rail is vastly more expensive in terms of maintenance and repair than rubber-tired busses or elevated monorail; (4) Truely Rapid Transit MUST be elevated. This is what Monorail is designed for. Yet, no mention of elevated Monorail.

Thomas Denney

By JKH

April 22, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

YES, YES, YES! Please do this, I would love to be able to ditch the car and use light rail. Let’s start planning now on more routes! I’ve lived where light rail is available and it is SO nice. Especially if you’re going to a party or out with friends, you don’t need a designated driver. Please, please let this happen.

By Patrick in Oak Hill

April 22, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Once again, South Austin gets ignored by our party-fight-starting Mayor and the Council.

By We are Suckers

April 22, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

No new taxes - BS. That’s right - fees aren’t taxes….

It will cost 2x what the politicans guess and get 1/2 the ridership. We will all pay for the white elephant….

Did the first rail project meet the budget??? Haven’t they already increased the cost and decreased the ridership projections?

By vicki

April 22, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

What are you people thinking? Light rail has a place, but NOT down Congress Avenue. The existing and proposed condo projects have already ruined the view of the Capitol, the U.T. Tower and Town Lake. Now we’re going to ruin the character of Congress Ave. and the street approach to the Capitol and Lady Bird Lake, too? The people of Austin do not want to live in New York City or Chicago! There are better ways to handle transportation problems and better places to put light rail. Using existing parking places on Congress Ave. right next to the sidewalks and storefronts sounds totally appealing and safe, too, NOT! I can’t believe Congress Avenue is even being considered as a possibility for tethered electric cars. Weren’t they removed from Congress Ave. years ago?

By El Stone

April 22, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

I think this is a great idea. Austin has needed something like this for a long time. Now if people will actually use it will be the next test.

People! Give up your cars. When presented with an opportunity like light rail- take it.

I also think we need some kind of transit rail system down the MoPac rail line.

By kahn

April 22, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

Lets run the thing right to the Domain and Arboretum as well!

By Tim

April 22, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

Why don’t these geniuses consider monorail trains. They are quiet, smooth, and don’t interfere with (or have to wait for) auto traffic. They have a small footprint. Seattle has one that was built in the 60’s. It is a great ride.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #400  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2008, 4:49 PM
priller's Avatar
priller priller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,979
Wow, the naysayers are out in force. I'm very glad ROMA suggested this. With dedicated lanes. I'd love to see it going down Congress. It's not liked parked cars and traffic is scenic or anything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:33 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.