Austin's $10 Billion Expanded Rail with Subway Plan Approved

[Dariusb]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sta...emplate=ampart

[kingkirbythe....]

It is worth it at twice the price.

It will only cost more in the future. So, spend those billions and build now.

[jtown,man]

Austin should have started this 20 years ago. However, a subway downtown and then street level the rest of the way? Is there anything in this plan that includes some elevated portions?

[ATXboom]

Much needed!

Subway is the right move. Agree on investing ASAP.

Wonder how Street level will work. Can’t get votes taking a traffic lane away. And can’t get riders if trains are stuck in traffic.

[N90]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Austin should have started this 20 years ago.

Really? So Austin should have started this when it was a metro area of just 1 million? Sounds ridiculous.

It wouldn't have the critical mass or density in the core to support it back then. Right now is a good time to get started on it because it now has more of the critical mass, traffic, core area density, and road strain to support something like this.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by N90

Really? So Austin should have started this when it was a metro area of just 1 million? Sounds ridiculous.

It wouldn't have the critical mass or density in the core to support it back then. Right now is a good time to get started on it because it now has more of the critical mass, traffic, core area density, and road strain to support something like this.

The critical mass, traffic, core area density, and road strain is all there and growing rapidly. Traffic in the core and on highways entering and leaving the core is horrific. The case for building this project can be easily made, but a realistic way to pay for it is going to be a deal breaker. Unless there are generous federal funds (hah!), local tax revenue won't get the job done. The state legislature will oppose additional tax allocations for Austin transit projects. Local voters (supposedly progressive and liberal) are notoriously reluctant to spend big bucks on projects unless they are convinced it will benefit them. Most Austin area jobs are still outside the core, so unless you are somebody who commutes into the core or through the core on super congested highways, you are likely to oppose this project for the usual short sighted reasons related to your own experience. I think a downtown rail tunnel along with vastly expanded light rail throughout the region is the only solution, but it won't happen in my lifetime. Fortunately for some of you, I am in my mid-70s, so I am talking about a relatively short time frame. One day maybe Austin will rock on rails rolling through downtown tunnels. I sure hope so.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by N90

Really? So Austin should have started this when it was a metro area of just 1 million? Sounds ridiculous.

It wouldn't have the critical mass or density in the core to support it back then. Right now is a good time to get started on it because it now has more of the critical mass, traffic, core area density, and road strain to support something like this.

cough *calgary*

[Doady]

Originally Posted by cabasse

cough *calgary*

Transit in Calgary in 1980, before it finished building LRT, had around 50 million linked trips annually, which is around 75 million unlinked trips, around 2.5 times higher than Austin has today.

Calgary's ridership has doubled since 1981, it's population has also doubled since 1981. Calgary's transit ridership has not grown any faster as the result of LRT. Calgary built LRT because the ridership was already high, too high for buses, not because it was low. Their ridership was already growing very well before it built LRT, 25 percent from 1975 to 1980, from 39 million to 50 million. The ridership actually fell significantly immediately after it built LRT, from around 53 million 1981 to 44 million in 1984 (recession). Calgary's ridership did not return to its 1981 peak until the 90s.

Looking at those budget figures highlights what is the real problem with transit in Austin: lack of fare revenue. $28 million from fares? 10% cost recovery?

Capital Metro fare: $1.25
Calgary Transit fare: $3.50

THAT is the real difference between transit in Austin and transit in Calgary. Not LRT, but the fares. No matter how much LRT it builds, Austin will never be able to provide good transit by charging $1.25 fares.

So many people from US on this forum say Canadians use transit more because incomes are lower. But reality is that transit in Canada costs 2 times more. You can see also all the high ridership systems in US also charge 2 times more than typical systems like Austin. Without that fare revenue, a system will not have funds to provide enough service to attract riders. And ultimately the amount of service is what really matters, not the amount of rail.

[ATXboom]

Amount of service is what requires nuance. In Austin you can't put transit in car traffic because you lose the value moving faster than traffic does. And you can't take a traffic lane away as its still a car culture and you wan't get votes needed for transit funding. Whether bus or rail it needs to grade separate - that means elevated or sunk/subway. Those are the only 2 options for viable transit in austin.

[dc_denizen]

Build it!

[JManc]

Austin needs this badly. Traffic there is horrific and this would/ could help.

[The North One]

Isn't this the exact same thing Nashville proposed but then it was killed by Koch brother meddling?

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by The North One

Isn't this the exact same thing Nashville proposed but then it was killed by Koch brother meddling?

Not a one-to-one copy by any means of course, but there are similarities, including the downtown subway bit. Hopefully they have better luck getting it passed!

[Busy Bee]

This should be in the Transportation forum...

There is already a conversion going under Light Rail Boom... perhaps an Austin specific thread should be created...

[dubu]

i would think portland would get a subway before austin. portland isnt built for cars like austin and there is more people in portland.

[IrishIllini]

I don't think this is a could, but will.

[Doady]

I said it the other thread and I'll say it again. I don't think Austin really has the ridership for rail yet. They need to invest in buses first.

Dallas made the mistake in investing in rail before buses, building the largest light rail system in the country, and it has worse transit ridership than Austin. It's only when it finally started investing in buses last year that now Dallas is finally seeing major ridership growth.

You need a highly-developed bus system to know where to build rail. You need lots of buses to feed riders into the rail lines. Austin is doing good job building its bus network and it needs to finish doing that. It shouldn't rush to build rail.

When ridership is too high, that's when you build rail. When ridership is too low, you have to invest in buses.

Las Vegas, Winnipeg, Quebec City, these are some bus-only systems that get 60-70 million boardings every year, twice as much as Austin's. Seattle was around 150 million boardings annually before it finally built light rail. And guess what? It is around 200 million today, not a drastic change.

Rail isn't built to create a transit culture, rail is built for an existing transit culture. Austin doesn't have that transit culture, yet.

[C.]

Congress just needs to pass a trillion dollar infrastructure bill and send a few bucks Austin's way.

Current New Starts funding formula will prioritize some BS project in the middle of nowhere over this greatly needed project.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Doady

I said it the other thread and I'll say it again. I don't think Austin really has the ridership for rail yet. They need to invest in buses first.

Dallas made the mistake in investing in rail before buses, building the largest light rail system in the country, and it has worse transit ridership than Austin. It's only when it finally started investing in buses last year that now Dallas is finally seeing major ridership growth.

You need a highly-developed bus system to know where to build rail. You need lots of buses to feed riders into the rail lines. Austin is doing good job building its bus network and it needs to finish doing that. It shouldn't rush to build rail.

When ridership is too high, that's when you build rail. When ridership is too low, you have to invest in buses.

Las Vegas, Winnipeg, Quebec City, these are some bus-only systems that get 60-70 million boardings every year, twice as much as Austin's. Seattle was around 150 million boardings annually before it finally built light rail. And guess what? It is around 200 million today, not a drastic change.

Rail isn't built to create a transit culture, rail is built for an existing transit culture. Austin doesn't have that transit culture, yet.

Can't apply a Canadian experience to a U.S. city. American's don't like bus transit.

TODs and transit stations where you can park you car at can attract riders if it goes by employment areas. But people outside of NYC and a few other select metros won't necessarily take a bus to transfer at a rail station unless desperate. Texans don't do buses.

[mhays]

Doady, I don't agree with that. Austin is growing too quickly, its need is too great, and this huge era of development isn't benefiting from transit enough.

Much can presumably be done in the short term with more buses and some speed and service enhancements. But using buses to change the transit culture THEN studying rail would mean getting rail in 20 years instead of 10. During that time, you'd be growing more driving culture and driving infrastructure, with public pressure to expand roads, developers building huge parking ratios, and so on.

Start moving in the direction of rail now, and you'll start influencing developer thinking. When the system breaks ground they'll start making location choices with rail in mind, probably with less parking. Meanwhile you'll be spending money on a permanent solution vs. a temporary one.

BTW, I'd expect the Austin of 2030 to consider grade separation pretty important at least in key areas.