AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[wwmiv]

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...onsiderations/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The govt body in charge of the whole thing is saying it is a possibility, per this packet:

That decision has not been made.

Should we look at that option, of course, given the significant cost increases. But it's far from decided. Other options include changing the timing or staging, or shortening but not eliminating the downtown tunnel.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Except that the official organization of the opposition campaign predicted exactly these cost overruns, and campaigned on them--so in that context, how do you not call it a bait and switch?

https://thetexan.news/austin-propose...-transit-plan/

"covid" doesn't even appear on that page.

neither does "inflation"

or "view corridor"

So no, that org obviously knows nothing about the reasons for the cost increases that PC has experienced.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The bait and switch dynamic here is REALLY highlighted by the fact that a potential option now being discussed downtown (running at-grade in the median) is a core feature of the plan that Austin voted down not once, but twice. Does nobody remember the contention in all of these elections about running at-grade?

No, because it didn't exist.

Oppostion to, for instance the 2014 plan, wasn't "we shouldn't do at grade rail downtown"

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Now that at-grade is being considered at all, if that's what we end up with it will be the plan put before us in 2000 and 2014, and that is a bait and switch.

Other than the length, and routes. And the metrorapid routes, and the green line, and pickup zones....


The light rail was always going to be 90% at grade. So yes, if that's your criteria what we voted on was ~the same as both previous plans.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That decision has not been made.

Should we look at that option, of course, given the significant cost increases. But it's far from decided. Other options include changing the timing or staging, or shortening but not eliminating the downtown tunnel.





"covid" doesn't even appear on that page.

neither does "inflation"

or "view corridor"

So no, that org obviously knows nothing about the reasons for the cost increases that PC has experienced.




No, because it didn't exist.

Oppostion to, for instance the 2014 plan, wasn't "we shouldn't do at grade rail downtown"




Other than the length, and routes. And the metrorapid routes, and the green line, and pickup zones....


The light rail was always going to be 90% at grade. So yes, if that's your criteria what we voted on was ~the same as both previous plans.

You are a compliant pedant who will end up supporting anything.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You are a compliant pedant who will end up supporting anything.

Anything which is a massive improvement over our current system? Which will have the capacity to carry hundreds of thousands of people per day?

Sure, I'll support that. Guilty.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Anything which is a massive improvement over our current system? Which will have the capacity to carry hundreds of thousands of people per day?

Sure, I'll support that. Guilty.

I want to support this, I just worry that if we ever put an expansion to voters that they’ll vote no. And no. And no. Because they never got what they actually voted on in the first place and won’t ever trust the city again on transit.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I want to support this, I just worry that if we ever put an expansion to voters that they’ll vote no. And no. And no. Because they never got what they actually voted on in the first place and won’t ever trust the city again on transit.

We’ll never have to worry about losing a vote again if we can just get part of the system built out and people can see it and use it. We just need to get started.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I want to support this, I just worry that if we ever put an expansion to voters that they’ll vote no. And no. And no. Because they never got what they actually voted on in the first place and won’t ever trust the city again on transit.

That ship sailed with Covid.

Once the historic inflation from that hit, the exact system, length, features, timeline, sequence that was estimated before wasn't going to happen. Change was always likely before (if it wasn't the conflicts preventing the orange bridge, it would have been something else, that's how it always works), but covid guaranteed it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by freerover

We’ll never have to worry about losing a vote again if we can just get part of the system built out and people can see it and use it. We just need to get started.

I don't think it is just a question of build it or not build it.

It is a really question between four-ish options:

1. Build nothing, never go back to voters.
2. Build nothing now, go back to voters with a new plan.
3. Build nothing now, go back to voters and ask for more to execute the previous vision.
4. Build some version of the plan, go back to voters and ask for more to execute a complete system.

Option 1 is untenable because our traffic will do nothing but get exponentially worse. Options 2 and 3 would likely lose at the ballot box. Option 4 is obviously preferable, but not every possible outcome of option 4 is created equal.

4a. Build subway downtown, with a combination of at-grade and elevated beyond that, one river crossing, and two moderately shortened lines and then go back to voters and ask for more to execute a complete system -- with additional lines, new downtown segments, an additional river crossing, extensions, and intermittent additional grade separation outside of downtown as upgrades, and commuter rail on MoPac to the north and south burbs;

4b. Build at-grade downtown, and a combination of at-grade and elevated beyond that, two slightly shortened lines, one river crossing, then go back to voters and ask for more to execute a complete system -- with additional lines, new downtown segments, full conversion to subway downtown, an additional river crossing, extensions, and intermittent additional grade separation as upgrades, and commuter rail on MoPac to the north and south burbs;

Both initial builds in option 4a and 4b cost about the same, but 4a will be operationally superior. Being operationally superior helps when you go back to voters and ask for money to build more, as it will have generated higher ridership without damage to the capacity of the roadways to move vehicles. Not only that, but option 4a's future potential needs are much less expensive than 4b's because it frontloaded a significant portion of the subway. Given that 4b would likely generate fewer riders yet at great expense of the roadway capacity, going back to voters and having to ask for additional funds might be a comparatively harder sell than having a system which hasn't impacted roadway capacity at all.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I don't think it is just a question of build it or not build it.

It is a really question between five options:

1. Build nothing, never go back to voters.
2. Build nothing now, go back to voters with a new plan.
3. Build nothing now, go back to voters and ask for more to execute the previous vision.
4. Build some version of the plan, go back to voters and ask for more to execute a complete system.

5. Build everything, but with sufficient delay and staging of certain components to make up for the cost increases. (possible, but not super likely the cost of the extended river tunnel could be made up).

6. Build everything but the orange line crossing, never go back and add it. Some smaller delays or staging for whatever costs that doesn't cover.

7. Single crossing, build less (but still some) downtown tunnel. ~never go back to the voters because we don't actually hit the peak capacity limits that were projected as possible decades later (post-covid changed commuter patterns, etc.)

8. a >45% federal share magically bails us out.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

4a. Build subway downtown, with a combination of at-grade and elevated beyond that, one river crossing, and two moderately shortened lines and then go back to voters and ask for more to execute a complete system -- with additional lines, new downtown segments, an additional river crossing, extensions, and intermittent additional grade separation outside of downtown as upgrades, and commuter rail on MoPac to the north and south burbs;

4b. Build at-grade downtown, and a combination of at-grade and elevated beyond that, two slightly shortened lines, one river crossing, then go back to voters and ask for more to execute a complete system -- with additional lines, new downtown segments, full conversion to subway downtown, an additional river crossing, extensions, and intermittent additional grade separation as upgrades, and commuter rail on MoPac to the north and south burbs;

Both initial builds in option 4a and 4b cost about the same,

Except they really don't. shortening the two ends of the orange line slightly vs. moderately saves you maybe 100M or so. (blue can't be shortened, as there's no other good option to put the maintenance yard)

Downtown at grade vs. below grade is billions of dollars different. *

Originally Posted by wwmiv

but 4a will be operationally superior. Being operationally superior helps when you go back to voters and ask for money to build more, as it will have generated higher ridership without damage to the capacity of the roadways to move vehicles. Not only that, but option 4a's future potential needs are much less expensive than 4b's because it frontloaded a significant portion of the subway. Given that 4b would likely generate fewer riders yet at great expense of the roadway capacity, going back to voters and having to ask for additional funds might be a comparatively harder sell than having a system which hasn't impacted roadway capacity at all.

I think you're way overweighing the "roadway capacity" argument.

You're talking about Trinity (not a major route downtown below 4th), 4th street (that they were already going to mostly pedestrianize in the subway option) and Guadalupe (which already has a bus lane). Lose a bit of parking downtown if you need to make it up.

As I said way back in this thread, my personal preference would be to still build the complete tunnel downtown (5 or 6). But it 100% makes sense to examine all options.

I'd be a bit surprised if it ended up as _no_ tunnel downtown (if nothing else, to help diffuse some of these arguments). Topography wise it makes a lot of sense to still have the blue line bridge lead to a tunnel portal. Maybe Trinity, underground station at convention center, turn the corner, surface somewhere along 4th street. Cuts your tunneling (and cost) down significantly but still keeps a lot of the operational advantages.

edit/add:

*showing some work


The original cost estimate for the (downtown only) tunnel was 2B. With cost increases just that (not counting the lake crossing) have got to be at least up to 2.5B.
The surface equivalent, 1.5 miles of light rail, can't be much more than 500M.

So how much surface light rail on the ends of the orange, where it's already cheaper to build, would you have to cut to compensate? Let's assume a way overestimate of 250M /mile. 4 miles cut from the end.

Or _all_ of the orange line south of the river. Or _all_ of the orange north of campus. Probably much, much more.

[wwmiv]

I fixed some things for you:

Originally Posted by Novacek

4c. Build everything, but with sufficient delay and staging of certain components to make up for the cost increases. (possible, but not super likely the cost of the extended river tunnel could be made up).

4d. Build everything but the orange line crossing, never go back and add it. Some smaller delays or staging for whatever costs that doesn't cover.

4e. Single crossing, build less (but still some) downtown tunnel. ~never go back to the voters because we don't actually hit the peak capacity limits that were projected as possible decades later (post-covid changed commuter patterns, etc.)

4f. a >45% federal share magically bails us out.



Except they really don't. shortening the two ends of the orange line slightly vs. moderately saves you maybe 100M or so. (blue can't be shortened, as there's no other good option to put the maintenance yard)

Downtown at grade vs. below grade is billions of dollars different.



I think you're way overweighing the "roadway capacity" argument.

You're talking about Trinity (not a major route downtown below 4th), 4th street (that they were already going to mostly pedestrianize in the subway option) and Guadalupe (which already has a bus lane). Lose a bit of parking downtown if you need to make it up.

As I said way back in this thread, my personal preference would be to still build the complete tunnel downtown (4c or 4d). But it 100% makes sense to examine all options.

I'd be a bit surprised if it ended up as _no_ tunnel downtown (if nothing else, to help diffuse some of these arguments). Topography wise it makes a lot of sense to still have the blue line bridge lead to a tunnel portal. Maybe Trinity, underground station at convention center, turn the corner, surface somewhere along 4th street. Cuts your tunneling (and cost) down significantly but still keeps a lot of the operational advantages.

(bolded mine)

Eventually, everything downtown will need to be subway, but I do appreciate and understand and already know without you that these are still options. My problem with you is that you didn't understand that an all at-grade option is being considered downtown. And you have obfuscated facts and misrepresented what I've said, which is irksome.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I fixed some things for you:



(bolded mine)

Eventually, everything downtown will need to be subway, but I do appreciate and understand and already know without you that these are still options. My problem with you is that you didn't understand that an all at-grade option is being considered downtown. And you have obfuscated facts and misrepresented what I've said, which is irksome.

to repeat "But it 100% makes sense to examine all options". If you're so many billions of dollars in the hole, not looking at every possibility would be flat out malpractice.

That doesn't mean they're going to go with that option. And I hope they don't.

Something will need to be cut, at least for now. If they don't even look at an at grade downtown, whoever comes up short is going to immediately yell and scream that they should do that instead. Way, way better to have actually analyzed that option, and be able to answer any such criticism with facts and figures.

[hereinaustin]

Perhaps we’re too early to answer this, but is the city planning for a cut-and-cap subway or are they having to tunnel all of it? (Just wondering about how the surface roadways will be affected by construction)

[H2O]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Perhaps we’re too early to answer this, but is the city planning for a cut-and-cap subway or are they having to tunnel all of it? (Just wondering about how the surface roadways will be affected by construction)

I think it is too early to answer definitively, but I believe the working assumption is cut and cover for station boxes and horizontal boring in between them. The 4th Street multi-level tunnel with continuous concourse would be all one big cut and cover box. One of the things they are looking at is simplifying that with smaller station boxes that do not connect (for pedestrians) and boring in between.

[enragedcamel]

As someone who only occasionally skims over this thread, is there a place where one can get a summary of the current state of affairs with regards to transportation projects in Austin? I'm particularly interested in I-35 expansion and the light-rail from Austin to Round Rock.

[H2O]

It's a lot to summarize. The best I can offer is to go to the source:

https://projectconnect.com/

https://my35capex.com/

Light rail is not planned to extend to Round Rock. It is out of Cap Metro jurisdiction and does not contribute to City of Austin tax base, which is the source of funding for the project. The closest it will get to Round Rock is the Tech Ridge Park and Ride. I believe Round Rock is looking to contract for a transit service provider (maybe Cap Metro?) to create a shuttle service between Round Rock and Tech Ridge.

[Mikey711MN]

H2O provided links to the big two for sure, but here are a few more projects that are pretty major as well:

https://www.183north.com/ - construction of 2 managed lanes in each direction +1 lane to fill in gaps for 4 GP lanes in each direction between MoPac and FM 620/SH 45

https://www.oakhillparkway.com/ - locally known as the "Y", this long delayed project reconstructs the 290-71 split near Oak Hill and extends US 290 as a limited access highway to the west

https://183a.com/ - Phase III expansion of the 183A tolled mainlanes from Leander to SH 29 in Liberty Hill (a fast growing suburban Austin corridor)

https://www.austintexas.gov/departme...ement-programs - City of Austin corridor mobility program of upgrades to local major arterials funded by 2016 bonds

https://www.austintexas.gov/AUSJourney - AUS Airport expansion program, including major landside and airside developments over the next decade

[ohhey]

I'm not going to do the leg work to prove it, but my memory of what happened during the campaign for the transit ballot measure matches what wwmiv is saying. Furthermore, I also consider the possibility that the system downtown could be converted to at-grade rail to be a deeply concerning and problematic development. On top of that, it's completely perplexing to me that the CVC issue wasn't studied closely earlier in the design process. I really don't understand the apologists' defense of that glaring mistake (and fwiw, I have a degree in civil engineering and fully understand the complexities of the design process).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ohhey

I'm not going to do the leg work to prove it, but my memory of what happened during the campaign for the transit ballot measure matches what wwmiv is saying. Furthermore, I also consider the possibility that the system downtown could be converted to at-grade rail to be a deeply concerning and problematic development. On top of that, it's completely perplexing to me that the CVC issue wasn't studied closely earlier in the design process. I really don't understand the apologists' defense of that glaring mistake (and fwiw, I have a degree in civil engineering and fully understand the complexities of the design process).

Again, because the CVC isn’t an issue with the original/voted on route. It’s an issue with the one they considered switching to _this year_.

Once it potentially prevented that, yes they started looking at it very quickly.

Edit/add:

Just what did you all complainers expect them to do instead?

"Here's the 7B transit system we intend to build.
But just in case the bridge, that we 100% intend to build, doesn't work out (even though we have no reason to suspect that it won't), here's a 8B transit plan that tunnels south of the CVC.

The tax increase will be either 8.75 cents or X cents"


add2:

"On top of that, it's completely perplexing to me that the CVC issue wasn't studied closely earlier in the design process."

How early? The design process, remember, didn't start until _after_ the vote. So either way you're still coming in later saying the cost has increased ~1B.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by ohhey

I'm not going to do the leg work to prove it, but my memory of what happened during the campaign for the transit ballot measure matches what wwmiv is saying. Furthermore, I also consider the possibility that the system downtown could be converted to at-grade rail to be a deeply concerning and problematic development. On top of that, it's completely perplexing to me that the CVC issue wasn't studied closely earlier in the design process. I really don't understand the apologists' defense of that glaring mistake (and fwiw, I have a degree in civil engineering and fully understand the complexities of the design process).

There was no design process before voters approved this. The design process is what is happening now.

I'm simplifying here, but in any engineering project, there are estimates, there is design, and there is implementation. There are almost always issues that can't possibly be discovered in the estimates. They will only be discovered after monies are approved and the design process starts. Sometimes issues aren't even discovered during the design process. Some aren't found until implementation.

At any rate, WRT the CVC issue, I believe this happened because there was initially no reason whatsoever to think that there would be a CVC issue. If I'm remembering correctly, the original length of the tunnel was supposed to be much, much shorter. With that shorter tunnel, during the design process, it was discovered that there was a potential flooding issue. So the original estimated location of the tunnel portal was not feasible.

The tunnel needed to be lengthened to avoid that potential flooding issue. The shortest version of that avoided the flooding issue, but put it into conflict with the CVC. Subsequently, to further avoid CVC issues, they needed to make the tunnel even longer.

[ohhey]

The design process begins with defining the problem or goal and identifying potential outcomes, and it should include a clear understanding of the project constraints at a very early stage - i.e. during the early stages of the design that occurred prior to the election.

Subterranean rail downtown is an important part of the plan sold to voters, and a change to at-grade trains there would be a mistake IMO. They should do their due diligence and look at it, but ultimately I'm personally against that switch -cut costs elsewhere. The heart of the transit system is downtown, and we need to get that right the first go-around.