AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[freerover]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

There are probably lots of differences, but I think generally the diesel trains on the Red Line are heavier and of course, run on diesel fuel.

The Orange/Blue/Gold lines will be electric and presumably run via overhead wire. Also I think they've envisioned running multiple linked cars from the beginning for these lines.

It's also possible to do 3rd rail power for light rail. They had it in the historical section of Bordeaux France. You can walk on top of the tracks with no safety concerns. However, once the trains got out of the historical area, they transition to overhead wires.

[nixcity]

Project Connect Virtual Open House is online, I'm not sure it has been posted yet so here is the link.
https://www.capmetroengage.org/en/pa...nities/current

[We vs us]

I have lots of questions. Why did we go with diesel for the Red Line originally, and not electric? Cost, I assume?

Why not electrify the line now? Cost I assume.

Is this the reason that the Red Line can't connect up and feed into the rest of the system? The fact that it has to terminate at the downtown station and we seemingly have to build another line (The Blue) just around the corner to transfer people to just seems . . . utterly ridiculous.

More questions as they occur.

[Geographer]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I have lots of questions. Why did we go with diesel for the Red Line originally, and not electric? Cost, I assume?

Why not electrify the line now? Cost I assume.

Is this the reason that the Red Line can't connect up and feed into the rest of the system? The fact that it has to terminate at the downtown station and we seemingly have to build another line (The Blue) just around the corner to transfer people to just seems . . . utterly ridiculous.

More questions as they occur.

I have the same questions.

I'll add one more: Has ever been any talk of an elevated or sunken portion of our future metro lines?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I have lots of questions. Why did we go with diesel for the Red Line originally, and not electric? Cost, I assume?

Why not electrify the line now? Cost I assume.

Is this the reason that the Red Line can't connect up and feed into the rest of the system? The fact that it has to terminate at the downtown station and we seemingly have to build another line (The Blue) just around the corner to transfer people to just seems . . . utterly ridiculous.

More questions as they occur.

1a) Cost. Between quarter cent give backs and other spending, capmetro had no money for an electrified system by the time they were designing the Red Line.

They built the red line for ~$120M , or $4M /mile.
Electrified light rail was even at the time running close to $100M /mile. Now we're looking at closer to $200M /mile.

1b) It doesn't really make sense to electrify the red line, not really at Austin's current density and current frequencies of the line. Certainly not 15 years ago.

Maybe in another 20 years. But we'll almost certainly always have more productive uses for the hundreds of millions/billions it would take.

The CapMetro is a reasonably productive _commuter_ railroad. It can incrementally grow to a very good one, or even more than a commuter railroad. But it's hard to partially electrify.

Maybe if UP ever gets back on board with running commuter service on those lines. Then the commuter service can switch to running on the UP line at McNeil, and the current red line (downtown to McNeil junction) could become light rail.

2) Far from ridiculous. Every successful transit system has both mass transit and commuter systems.

Iteroperability is basically precluded by the larger turning radiuses of the DMUs, the desire to have the light rail lines operate in a tunnel downtown, etc.

You also have the Red Line being overseen by the FRA, and you really want the new lines to only be controlled by the FTA.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Geographer

I have the same questions.

I'll add one more: Has ever been any talk of an elevated or sunken portion of our future metro lines?

They're looking (it's not officially part of the LPA yet, but that's what seemed to be in the cards before corona hit) at spending billions on a downtown tunnel. In addition to that, some grade separated (probably elevated) sections where the RoW is especially narrow or where they need to avoid highways or the freight lines.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I have lots of questions. Why did we go with diesel for the Red Line originally, and not electric? Cost, I assume?

Why not electrify the line now? Cost I assume.

Is this the reason that the Red Line can't connect up and feed into the rest of the system? The fact that it has to terminate at the downtown station and we seemingly have to build another line (The Blue) just around the corner to transfer people to just seems . . . utterly ridiculous.

More questions as they occur.

Traveling east-west on this rail system will be a bit hokey. It would be nice if there were a planned line that had an east-west leg going through all of downtown and the east side. (From Mopac to Pleasant Valley maybe) At the moment, we're looking at a primarily north-south rail system.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Traveling east-west on this rail system will be a bit hokey. It would be nice if there were a planned line that had an east-west leg going through all of downtown and the east side. (From Mopac to Pleasant Valley maybe) At the moment, we're looking at a primarily north-south rail system.

For a primarily north south city.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

etc.

Why is electrical so much more expensive? Why is density a key metric for electrification?

I understand that the Red Line on paper is sort of different from light rail, but, like every curious and highly critical layman, I don't understand why it's not, since it obviously looks like light rail and CapMetro sort of wants you to treat it that way.

I get that every system has a blend of different modes, but I haven't heard from CapMetro why the Red Line is different, and can't connect. While you, a well-versed transit guy, knows the ins and outs, I, the aforementioned layman, do not, and need to be walked through what seems an obvious problem.

Who or what is FRA and FTA, and what is the difference, and why does it matter?

[wwmiv]

It’s a cost thing. How do you recoup the cost per mile when you cannot generate added ridership and thus even anything approaching minimally reasonable rider fare offsets to cover the expense. Some preexisting minimum density is necessary for the line to generate the ridership, and we have set ourselves on the path to generate the added density by having rail transit in the corridor, and we will eventually reach a tipping point where it makes financial sense to electrify the line because we will be able to sustain the increase in ridership via the benefits of added frequency (and thus capacity) via that density and offset the cost via that fare. We aren’t there yet and it will take enacting other policies to get there to which the city, it’s political leadership, bureaucratic leadership, and population seem either hesitant or unwilling to commit.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Why is electrical so much more expensive? Why is density a key metric for electrification?

I understand that the Red Line on paper is sort of different from light rail, but, like every curious and highly critical layman, I don't understand why it's not, since it obviously looks like light rail and CapMetro sort of wants you to treat it that way.

I get that every system has a blend of different modes, but I haven't heard from CapMetro why the Red Line is different, and can't connect. While you, a well-versed transit guy, knows the ins and outs, I, the aforementioned layman, do not, and need to be walked through what seems an obvious problem.

Who or what is FRA and FTA, and what is the difference, and why does it matter?

I'll try to answer as another layperson who is interested in but not really immersed in all of this.

Red Line I believe is considered heavy rail (as opposed to light rail). It's also considered to be commuter rail, which is mostly designed to shuttle people from Park and Rides in far flung suburbs to/from downtown during rush hour.

It shares track with freight trains and a certain level of crash-worthiness is required for the DMUs (diesel multiple unit - the train, basically). It's subject to regulation under Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules, which can be onerous, restrictive, and expensive. The $77m positive train control system is an example of the type of thing that can make operating under these rules burdensome and costly. I think FRA rules also make the timing of some of the crossing gates kind of stupid.

FTA is the Federal Transit Administration, which is I suppose the agency under whose purview the future Orange/Blue/Gold (and bus lines) will fall. Knowing nothing else about their rules, I believe CapMetro would have a lot more operational freedom under FTA rules.

With regard to electrifying the current Red Line route, it's just not worth the expense given the ridership and low frequency. The Red Line is already a long route (32 miles) and to construct and maintain catenary wire or electrified third rail along the entire route would do nothing to attract any additional ridership, at least under current population/housing along the route. Additionally, if we wanted to dramatically increase frequency (which would attract more riders) we would need to add more double tracking (also electrified) in order to allow trains to pass in opposite directions.

In order to project the type of ridership needed to justify an expense that large, density along basically the entire route would need to increase dramatically. The increase in people who live/work/play along the line would frankly need to be so dramatic that it would cease to be a commuter line at that point.

As for transfers, I am actually most excited about this feature. Future Red Line riders will be able to access the much more useful Orange and Blue (possibly Gold if the map is accurate) lines via transfer. These lines can then take commuters to areas of the city with much higher concentrations of jobs and useful destinations. Stated another way, the Red Line becomes many times more useful even if we do not spend additional Red Line dollars. If we are somehow able to navigate the covid and electoral landscape and build the Orange/Blue/Gold lines, I think Red Line capacity limitations will become a big issue.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Why is electrical so much more expensive? Why is density a key metric for electrification?

I understand that the Red Line on paper is sort of different from light rail, but, like every curious and highly critical layman, I don't understand why it's not, since it obviously looks like light rail and CapMetro sort of wants you to treat it that way.

I get that every system has a blend of different modes, but I haven't heard from CapMetro why the Red Line is different, and can't connect. While you, a well-versed transit guy, knows the ins and outs, I, the aforementioned layman, do not, and need to be walked through what seems an obvious problem.

Who or what is FRA and FTA, and what is the difference, and why does it matter?

CapMetro has gradually inched towards some hybrid aspects, but the Red line is still overwhelmingly a commuter system.

The main distinguishing features are

1) service frequency and operating hours/days. Emphasis on peak vs. off-peak can make a difference here, though that was one of CM's first compromises.
2) station spacing. sometimes station manner of construction.
3) A little bit of direction of transit demand.
4) (kinda) geographic reach

1)The red line, in part due to sharing the tracks with freight, has pretty limited operating hours. The frequency is currently way down. The improvements that are in progress should bump it up a bit, but then it'll be ~15 minute peaks, not like 5-10 minute.
There's some Saturday service now, but not all day and none on Sunday.

CM even started with no mid day service, but added some.

2)The stations are broadly spaced, even in the urban core but especially in the suburbs. That'll vary in light rail systems towards the fringes, but not nearly to the extent of commuter rail. It's like 10 miles (a third of the line) from Leander to Lakeline. You'd never see that with electrified light rail, that would be like an extra billion dollars in construction costs.

You'll end up getting suburban focused stations towards the ends of light rail, but with the red line McNeil and further are park and rides. It's a minority of stations but the majority of the line. If Cedar Park was still in Capmetro, there probably would be at least one more P+R.

3) Even in light rail demand will be downtown focused, but the vast majority of the red line's ridership(like 90%) rides south and gets off at downtown in the morning then turns around and boards the downtown station in the evening.

This is one that may start to change eventually, if/when Broadmore (and Robinson in the future?) start to become more destinations in their own right.

4) Going 32 miles out isn't unheard of for light rail. But I think it would be for a single light rail line. Even DART (which is more suburban focused than most, I don't think started going that far out).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

It's subject to regulation under Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules, which can be onerous, restrictive, and expensive. The $77m positive train control system is an example of the type of thing that can make operating under these rules burdensome and costly.

Also stupid and counter-productive.

PTC will probably cost more lives than it saves, simply by all the transit service that agencies won't be able to provide with that money, thereby leaving more people out to die on highways.

Though last I heard they at least had backed off adding the two-driver rule.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

As for transfers, I am actually most excited about this feature. Future Red Line riders will be able to access the much more useful Orange and Blue (possibly Gold if the map is accurate) lines via transfer. These lines can then take commuters to areas of the city with much higher concentrations of jobs and useful destinations. Stated another way, the Red Line becomes many times more useful even if we do not spend additional Red Line dollars. If we are somehow able to navigate the covid and electoral landscape and build the Orange/Blue/Gold lines, I think Red Line capacity limitations will become a big issue.

Yeah, though the update from CM removed any more red line projects from the "30 year plan", I'll be surprised if it stays that way for 3 decades.

If the orange/blue/gold line actually get built and are on the ground, now the "independent analysis" of red line projects is done assuming their existence (and the improved productivity that means).

[We vs us]

Thanks Novacek and atxsnail -- good explanations throughout.

[ohhey]

Before the pandemic hit there was a decent chance a new rail transit proposition could pass in November. But now I think there's almost no way it will. Many voters who would normally support transit are going to be looking at the cost of the system and wondering if this type of spending is appropriate when so many of us are out of work and all levels of government are struggling to pay their bills. And on top of that, there's so much uncertainty about what kinds of long term social distancing measures will be implemented and how that will affect ridership potential. It's just bad timing for this proposal. My suggestion would be wait a couple more years and hope things turn around dramatically. It's a better alternative than another failure at the ballot box that would likely mean Austin never gets a decent rail system.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by ohhey

Before the pandemic hit there was a decent chance a new rail transit proposition could pass in November. But now I think there's almost no way it will. Many voters who would normally support transit are going to be looking at the cost of the system and wondering if this type of spending is appropriate when so many of us are out of work and all levels of government are struggling to pay their bills. And on top of that, there's so much uncertainty about what kinds of long term social distancing measures will be implemented and how that will affect ridership potential. It's just bad timing for this proposal. My suggestion would be wait a couple more years and hope things turn around dramatically. It's a better alternative than another failure at the ballot box that would likely mean Austin never gets a decent rail system.

If you don’t run it in 2020 then you need to wait to 2024. I still think it passes this year.

[Texnochracy]

It can pass. Though you may see the pandemic permanently reduce commuting rates, the rail proposal is not soley for commuters. In fact, only 21.1% of all household travel is commute travel and in general the commute is way overemphasized as the main benefit to transit proposals. The CapMetro proposal is a high-frequency transit system that anyone can use anytime to get places they want to go without a car. If folks want to go to school, the grocery store, to a friends house or otherwise, they'll benefit more from this system than commuters. I'm not just talking about the rail lines either. The high frequency bus lines in this proposal are just as effective in reducing costs and providing fast, easy transportation options for regular Austin households if folks compare the costs of owning a vehicle to the amount they'll contribute to paying for this system. The communication leading up to the election will be critical to getting this done but there is no cheaper time for households to afford this. Infrastructure only increases in cost and the 2000 proposal would've been paid for many times over by now had we passed a transit election then. Waiting till 2024 would be, frankly, fiscally irresponsible for everyone.

[austin242]

I will say that it'd be nice if they put the power supply at street level instead of overhead on South Congress from riverside to live oak like in the Sydney CBD. That way there would be no visual obstruction down congress to the capital. However with I guess they plan on not electrifying the system at all and instead they will be just getting battery powered trains. IMO (in my opinion) that stinks. Electrification is a better option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply
This video gives a good feel of what it would be like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

[freerover]

Originally Posted by austin242

I will say that it'd be nice if they put the power supply at street level instead of overhead on South Congress from riverside to live oak like in the Sydney CBD. That way there would be no visual obstruction down congress to the capital. However with I guess they plan on not electrifying the system at all and instead they will be just getting battery powered trains. IMO (in my opinion) that stinks. Electrification is a better option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply
This video gives a good feel of what it would be like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

I don't think battery powered trains are possible. This is what a 3rd rail option would look like. Very clean but expensive.