AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[drummer]

^ I count four smiley faces as you guys try to tear each others' arguments apart.

In all fairness, you guys bring some good info to the table, so please, continue....

[wwmiv]

The following was written without reading the above comments in detail, only skimming. Sorry if any of the arguments are duplicative.

The future is definitely multimodal for the following reason: density varies and will continue to vary.

#1: automobiles (whether individually operated or some future drone capability) will continue to predominate in less dense areas (by which I mean most suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas) (a) because in those less dense areas there is enough space to cope with the larger infrastructure needs that individualized transportation of any type necessarily requires (even if droned capability's renting and/or fleet share preferential market economics vis-a-vis in an individually operated dominated market would make the infrastructure needs less burdensome for all levels of government both in cost and spatially) and (b) because in less dense areas the cost for government to operate mass transit of any style - particularly rail - goes up exponentially with little return on investment for its citizenry and there are also racial political ramifications unavoidable in the question of public transportation (e.g. busses, which are the most public-economically and infrastructurally feasible option in suburban America) in Americas white flight suburbs AND these fears are currently heightened due to (frankly needed) racial unrest amidst diversifying suburbs (places like Round Rock and Georgetown are rapidly becoming more Hispanic, and they're unlikely to opt into CapMetro any time soon, and Pflugerville is becoming more African American and they're barely served, right? Taylor is another city that is becoming less white because everybody else is growing faster and they'll never opt in to CapMetro).

#2: in urban America and in long distance travel, however, individualized transit of any kind other than the occasional drunk uber-style ride share is too infrastructurally burdensome to be feasible at high technology adoption levels especially when continued reliance on individualized transit would be economically dampening. To cope with larger demands and less space or necessary spatial time constraints (i.e. needing to be somewhere far away quicker) all types of mass transit options must be explored, with roles for both the public (busses, rail) and the private sectors (air).

Also sorry if all of this was overly academically jargon-y.

Edit: apparently drummer and I are saying similar things.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

Not costing that much? First, freight sidings are usually built on land already owned by the railroad, so there's no additional property to buy. A new rail corridor, even in the middle of nowhere, the railroad has to spend to buy or get access to the corridor, 50 to 100 feet wide.
So, automatically its going to cost more than building a freight siding.

You claimed simply moving from 115 pound to 136 pound rails added $20 milion /mile.

136 pound rails cost <200k /mile.

Your claim: absolutely false.


My link describes estimates for RoW acquisition costs.

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewco...92&context=etd
Page 49.

In rural areas, ~500k /mile. It's almost noise in the equation for the Lone Star project (~40M in the multi billion project).

AGAIN, trying to use urban commuter rail construction costs for a rural freight bypass is absolutely fundamentally wrong.

Originally Posted by electricron

but that's a chore Lone Star Rail will have to do too on the existing UP rail corridor. So the argument TexRail's station expenses add to their total cost but not for Lone Star Rail is also false.

But you were disputing the estimate for the cost of the freight bypass.

WHICH WON'T HAVE ANY FREAKING STATIONS!

Originally Posted by electricron

The idea that HSR can be built as cheaply as DCTA's A-Train can't possibly be true

Who's claiming that?
$40M /mile =/= $12M /mile.

If you think the Texas HSR cost estimate is too low, take it up with them.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

and Pflugerville is becoming more African American and they're barely served, right?

Pflugerville also voted themselves out of CapMetro in 1999.

Though it seems they're at least looking at providing some service.

http://kxan.com/2015/12/07/pflugervi...provide-buses/

[nixcity]

I can't wait to stop this talk of rail....the real future is point to point autonomous vehicles.

Yes, stop talk of something PROVEN to move massive amounts of people and instead hold out hope for something that will take 50-100 years to be able to fully implement.

[nixcity]

The problem with Austin is that our density is so low 2500 (Dallas 3500, Portland 8500..if memory serves). And even with all the construction going on now, i don't ever see us reaching the density of Portland. Without REAL density, we rely on the suburbs to vote FOR a rail system that will not directly impact their commute and because of the cost to homeowner's tax bill, looks unlikely to ever pass.

Not true, Dallas' density is less than that and Portland's density is WAY less than what you put. But yes, Austin's density is a sick joke, one played out through decades of automobile centric development. That said, we DO have the most dense neighborhood in Texas, one that happens to be very used to mass transit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendel...b_5888424.html
As to your ASSUMPTION that people won't vote for rail, what actual facts do you have to back that up??? We have an actual poll, from AFTER the last vote that states people are willing to accept a tax hike. Yeah, 63% said they would.
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...op-austin.html
wwmv and Drummer are right, if we have any chance at saving the mobility of people in this city (metro) it will have to be through mixed modes.

[nixcity]

As to the other discussions: Pflugerville really needs to join again, they are as tied to the city as any other suburb.
I'm not sure about how much Lonestar will cost but I have a real hard time believing there will not be some kind of bond at each municipality to cover it (which I'm fine with as long as we ALREADY have at least one true urban line in place). Also, SA needs to step up and build a line (maybe just a simple streetcar car line around DT) to make this more viable. I (and many others would too) want to get on a train in ATX, go spend the day in SA, get around using their rail and then come back at night. This is how things work in Europe, Asia and parts of the Northeast USA.

[nixcity]

And since things that are actually currently happening haven't been posted yet. Here is an article with actual city officials working to get rail on the ballot FOR THIS YEAR! Everybody on this site knows the GuadaLamar alignment would be a success. Put pressure on the city council to heed the declaration by the Urban Transportation Commission!!!
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...k-transit.html

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Not true, Dallas' density is less than that and Portland's density is WAY less than what you put. But yes, Austin's density is a sick joke, one played out through decades of automobile centric development. That said, we DO have the most dense neighborhood in Texas, one that happens to be very used to mass transit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendel...b_5888424.html
As to your ASSUMPTION that people won't vote for rail, what actual facts do you have to back that up??? We have an actual poll, from AFTER the last vote that states people are willing to accept a tax hike. Yeah, 63% said they would.
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...op-austin.html
wwmv and Drummer are right, if we have any chance at saving the mobility of people in this city (metro) it will have to be through mixed modes.

Of course 63% support rail. If it goes from their door to their job.

The support goes a lot lower when you ask them to pay for a system that doesn't directly serve their specific trip. Or realistically will never reach their suburb.

[nixcity]

^Have you even read the Zandan poll?? You really come off as a Troll sometimes, the poll says nothing about coming right to your door and dropping you off right where you want to to go!!! Not all people are idiots, they know how trains work ya know.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

^Have you even read the Zandan poll?? You really come off as a Troll sometimes, the poll says nothing about coming right to your door and dropping you off right where you want to to go!!! Not all people are idiots, they know how trains work ya know.

Yes.

Show me where the Zandan poll specified any route?

It doesn't.




Sure, more people support rail in the abstract. But that support goes down when you inevitably have to nail down specifics.

Propose a route on Lamar, and support in West Austin and East Austin goes down.

Propose a route that's just downtown and points north, and support in South Austin goes down.

[nixcity]

^Uh, duh

The fact that it doesn't pin down a locale tells you that the people support the idea of GOOD rail. Which, of course, a G/L alignment would be. Project Connect proved that again and again with their polls that showed people by FAR choosing that corridor.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

^Uh, duh

The fact that it doesn't pin down a locale tells you that the people support the idea of GOOD rail.

But everyone's idea of "good rail" varies.

For those in south Austin, "good rail" very well may not include a rail that only goes north (like the 2000 G/L plan).


A poll that says 63% support some amount of raised taxes for rail some location doesn't automatically mean:

63% support a large tax increase for a Billion dollar system that doesn't serve SE Austin, doesn't serve East Austin, doesn't serve West Austin.


We have absolutely 0 evidence that people will vote for rail when presented with a realistic system and a realistic budget.

[nixcity]

We have absolutely 0 evidence that people will vote for rail when presented with a realistic system and a realistic budget.

Nope, but we sure as hell know where it has the best chance to succeed, both at the polls and in ridership (thus cost to taxpayers per rider).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Nope, but we sure as hell know where it has the best chance to succeed, both at the polls and in ridership (thus cost to taxpayers per rider).

If the only concern is cost to taxpayer per rider, we'll never build rail.

If that's your concern, what's the point of spending billions on rail, which will mostly convert existing bus riders into rail riders, at a per-rider subsidy mostly the same (or even higher).

The point of building rail is to improve the overall transportation system.

If all the rail does is move students to/from downtown in approximately the same time as the old buses (since off-peak times won't see much improvement) that's not worth $Billions (no matter what the per-rider subsidy says).

[paul78701]

Speaking of good rail, what everyone knows is not good about the current red line is that it terminates on the eastern edge of downtown at the convention center. It really needs to continue further and add additional stops downtown. I believe that the current termination point really limits it's usefulness/ridership. As it is now, it doesn't exactly serve the entire central business district. (I'm guessing that it wasn't extended further west due to potential street disruptions though?) I'm surprised that I've never seen any discussion on fixing this other than by providing additional stops with light rail.

IMHO, a giant improvement (maybe not possible/realistic though?) would be for it to head underground after it crosses I-35 into downtown. That might mean moving the first stop a couple blocks west. (4th and Brazos?) But that might be an improvement as it would be closer to where most commuters are heading to work. It also lines up with the heavy trafficked bus stops along Brazos. The next stop could be under Republic Square Park. That would line up with the bus corridors along Guadalupe and Lavaca and all of the new/future development near there. Then the termination point could be at 3rd and Bowie/Lamar. This would be close to the current Amtrack station, line up perfectly with the future Lone Star rail stop and tie in perfectly to all the new development around Seaholm and whatnot.

I know a light rail connection could be added to take it further west, but that's a whole new system and a whole new can of worms that just hasn't made any headway. My somewhat short extension would provide better continuity and connectivity with the city wide public transportation system as a whole anyway. All three of the above stops are all within reasonable walking distance to almost the entirety of the CBD. They wouldn't require switching from one rail system to another (which is a deterrent to use). It also might be more palatable than other rail discussions too as it's a relatively short extension (and huge improvement) of what we currently have and is not a whole new additional system.

As I mentioned above though, I don't know if any of this is possible/realistic.

[nixcity]

The point of building rail is to improve the overall transportation system

Again, DUH

And after going after Electricon for being off on the price for Lonestar (which may or may not be true, they are so far out still from becoming reality they have no way of knowing how much it will cost) you claim that moving students (and only students you claim) from West Campus to downtown will cost BILLIONS, bahahahaha, you balk at work that connects all of the biggest employment centers with all of the densest residential parts of town. That is what is being brought to the city, not a line from the drag to downtown (which you damn well know would cost in the order of maybe 200 million, nowhere near the BILLIONS you claim). I've been waiting and waiting to see your plan, you have yet to produce anything productive, you just troll along and nay say everybody and yet offer nothing.
Here is what is being presented to the actual city council, not just some lone forum promoting for urbanism and skyscrapers. Those that have worked on this have the attention of various members of the council and the UTC already.
http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...light_rail.htm

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

cost BILLIONS, bahahahaha...
http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...light_rail.htm

That CACDC "plan" would cost ~2 Billion. At least. It's longer than the 2014 plan (which adds costs) and would be built later.

Originally Posted by nixcity

you balk at work that connects all of the biggest employment centers with all of the densest residential parts of town.

No, I don't. G/L is a reasonable route, I'd vote for it. But if you want to link employment with residential, running up Guadalupe isn't any better (and in some ways is worse) than than the 2014 plan.

What residential is being linked with employment by running up the drag?

UT jobs aren't centered on the drag. They're centered on the center of campus.

What jobs are residents in West Campus going to? They're not going downtown 9-5.


If you're going to spend $Billions on the line (which is what you're proposing), then the residential density of west campus is basically meaningless. It's not a density that is effectively served by a N/S rail line.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Here is what is being presented to the actual city council, not just some lone forum promoting for urbanism and skyscrapers. Those that have worked on this have the attention of various members of the council and the UTC already.
http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...light_rail.htm

Nope, it's not being presented to the city council.

All that's happening is that the UTC recommended that the council look at some sort of transit.
Might not even be rail. Might just be more transit priority lanes (which would be a good thing.

They're not recommending that route.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...k-transit.html

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Not true, Dallas' density is less than that and Portland's density is WAY less than what you put. But yes, Austin's density is a sick joke, one played out through decades of automobile centric development. That said, we DO have the most dense neighborhood in Texas, one that happens to be very used to mass transit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendel...b_5888424.html
As to your ASSUMPTION that people won't vote for rail, what actual facts do you have to back that up??? We have an actual poll, from AFTER the last vote that states people are willing to accept a tax hike. Yeah, 63% said they would.
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...op-austin.html
wwmv and Drummer are right, if we have any chance at saving the mobility of people in this city (metro) it will have to be through mixed modes.

Dallas density = 3518
Portland density = 4375
Austin density = 2653
NYC density = 27,012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population


Your Huffpo article shows NYC as less dense than LA? Really? This argument is about cities, not giant urban areas:

"The New York urban area covers..... 50 miles west to Hackettstown, New Jersey, 90 miles east to Sag Harbor Long Island, 55 miles north to Dutchess County, New York, and 80 miles south to Ocean County, New Jersey. The New York urban area is geographically bigger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined"

I don't assume they won't vote for rail. I know that they won't because, twice, they didn't vote for rail. I don't think it is a stretch to assume that the burbs voted "no" in greater numbers than did the urban core.