Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
Killing it is a bad idea. Yes, it is going to be a tremendous waste of money for a long time. However, the potential is there for good growth. In terms of servicing more dense areas, that is what the 'urban rail' that the city has the intent of developing will do. Let Cap Metro do their own thing in terms of commuter rail and let the city do its own thing with urban rail. In fact, they complement eachother.
|
Last I was involved, the city was planning around the Red Line (as an obstacle, really); not planning WITH it. The fact is that in our city, where commuting isn't intolerable for most people and parking isn't super-expensive, a transfer from the Red Line to the city's urban rail line will turn off a large number of people who aren't current transit patrons (slightly less of a turn-off than being forced to ride a shuttle-bus, but still a big drop in potential riders).
There's pretty much one recipe (two subrecipes) for success in post-war US cities with starting rail transit from zero; and they both require direct service (no transfers). Nobody has succeeded with service that starts out requiring heavy transfers; those that have tried have languished and never got a chance to build new lines.
The common recipe: Start in a suburban rail ROW; hit some park-and-rides; run fast. Transition to running in-street as you get close so you can hit major activity centers without transferring. This is what almost everybody did that succeeded.
The other subrecipe: Houston (build all in-street in an area with already very high density and major parking problems - i.e. the medical center; connect to a park-and-ride on one or both ends).
Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever succeeded with the model we're trying now (commuter rail first). South Florida tried with Tri-Rail - a 'plan' almost identical to the Red Line - slap some trains on some existing track, build some stations, and run shuttle-buses from there. 20 years later, guess how much additional rail is in the ground or even in planning?
Another oldie but goodie by Christof touches on this. You give direct service to your employment centers, or you don't get many riders - period.
Quote:
|
Think of this in terms of Portland. I hate to suggest that, considering Portland's supremely more intelligently routed MAX system. They also have the streetcar which serves the equivalent of 78705 (Pearl). Commuters are brought in on the MAX and when the MAX doesn't serve those individuals' needs downtown they use the streetcar. However, the MAX doesn't just END at the edge of downtown like Metrorail, so it isn't a great comparison. In the end I think everything will work out for the best and Cap Metro will be seen as prescient.
|
Portland started with light rail - and, by the way, have recently wasted a ton of money on another commuter line from nowhere to nowhere, so they're not immune to bad decisions either.
But fundamentally, the problem is that the Red Line
can effectively prevent urban rail from ever happening for Austin. First, the one really good light rail line that any other city would have started with
can now never be built, and as for the city's urban rail proposal;
in yesterday's Chronicle we see that not only will Capital Metro be competing for scarce local and federal rail dollars, but their shenanigans with the Red Line are having an impact even now on urban rail:
Quote:
|
But because they were late to the party, major planning projects initiated by the new executive team are now among the projects most in need of gap financing. Yet Goode called them "a crucial priority." Caught short are the Downtown Austin Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, the Strategic Mobility Plan, and the Austin Urban Rail program.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
