AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by ohhey

The money would be better spent completely redesigning and expanding the bus system. The train won't really work without a good bus system to get people to/from the 90+ percent of the city not served by rail. Get the bus system right first, and rail becomes a much better value proposition... Increase bus frequency, upgrade equipment, improve bus stops, add more park and ride locations, create more dedicated bus lanes, etc. I know some of this is being planned, but it's clearly not the top priority.

talk about something that will make ZERO difference lol. Any first segment of any transit system is always about proof of concept to a skeptical populous. Once people see this running, use it and like it, they will eventually demand more of it.

The no-build option is the thing that will relegate Austin to backwater car-dependent sprawl until someone else gets a ballot measure rolling in 15 more years or so.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

talk about something that will make ZERO difference lol. Any first segment of any transit system is always about proof of concept to a skeptical populous. Once people see this running, use it and like it, they will eventually demand more of it.

The no-build option is the thing that will relegate Austin to backwater car-dependent sprawl until someone else gets a ballot measure rolling in 15 more years or so.

How much is “proof of concept” worth? Isn’t that money better spent on housing homeless, or education, or how about health care? How do you measure the extent rail in Austin will slow/end car dependent sprawl? You can’t.

Our zoning laws have already relegated us to suburban sprawl.

Is it ethical to force poor people who live no where near the rail or future rail, to pay more taxes for UT students to get downtown or to the airport? And if it is, how much is too much?

All these questions will be ignored of course, because most rail opinions are based on feelings, facts be damned.

Buses > Rail

[valhalla]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Buses > Rail

This is far too oversimplified. Buses and rail each have their advantages. Light-rail travels faster than buses and even surface rail is generally timed to bypass traffic and streetlights. Of course, light-rail is fixed, and so buses are able to reach the areas not covered by rail. They each have a time and a place. Neither one is categorically better than the other.

From looking at every city with light rail, demand generally clusters around rail stops. Yes, I'm talking about "if you build it, they will come." The "they" is not just riders but developers and businesses. Go to NY, Chicago, or DC and almost all of the new development districts are crowded around the rail stops. True density doesn't happen by accident--it happens because cites first build the necessary infrastructure to make density possible.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ohhey

Increase bus frequency, upgrade equipment, improve bus stops, add more park and ride locations, create more dedicated bus lanes, etc. I know some of this is being planned, but it's clearly not the top priority.

The current metrorapids are probably at the limit of what frequency you can run, and already run into operational issues. They get stuck in traffic and bunch up, so their effective frequency drops.

And CapMetro is already having issues hiring/retaining enough bus drivers. That's one of the downsides of a significant BRT system option, it has higher manpower requirements than rail.

More dedicated lanes is also a significant capital expense. A huge chunk of the light rail cost is acquiring RoW for its dedicated tracks. Doing the same thing as dedicated BRT lanes isn't going to end up as cheap as you might think.

The numbers change of course if you're willing to significantly cut down on existing travel lanes.
I don't think Austin is willing to do that, and council/CM always seems to assume so as well.
There's enough pushback on lane reductions on a short section of guadalupe, where demand is highest and they can effectively turn Nueces into an alternative route. Taking half the lanes on Lamar all the way to NLTC (and beyond) isn't a fight they want to take on.
And of course, the same thing applies to light rail. If Austin was willing to give up lanes, we'd have much cheaper rail.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by valhalla

5 billion dollars for 10 miles of rail?? Can someone please explain to me how light rail can cost 500 million dollars per mile? I'm not being facetious, like I would honestly appreciate an explanation. I want to see light rail in austin more than anything but these numbers make it look like officials are skimming more off the top than a Zairian kleptocracy.

1. Inflation has been high the past couple of years (historically high, highest in almost 40 years). It's expected that will continue for a while, and ATP has to plan as if it will. Construction won't start for years, so this will continue to compound.

Worse, the inflation number you're used to seeing is the consumer price index. Costs for construction or materials can be even higher.


2. Interest rates are high, so the cost of debt financing has increased.

3. It's a tight labor market. Everywhere, but especially in Austin for construction labor. The construction of the rail will be competing with all sorts of other projects, including TxDot's I35 expansion.

4. Property costs in Austin have increased significantly, increasing the costs for all the property that needs to be acquired for right of way, park and rides, and the maintenance yard. It's also a bit of a vicious cycle, as decreasing the line length has forced the later two elements to move further into the city, increasing their costs.

5. The 5B number includes a huge 40% contingency, which the FTA is now requiring/heavily suggesting. Which means, to their best estimates, it's "only" a 3.5B system.

6. Several of the costs don't (or imperfectly) scale with mileage (that maintenance yard, buying trains, etc.) so a per-mile cost can be misleading. As the length has had to be cut back, those costs become a greater percentage of the total.

[ahealy]

Real question: what would it cost to create a bus system like that of London? I just got back and Jesus that was so fking easy and amazing. I don't understand why America doesn't have double decker buses. I believe the new ones are electric and to board all you needed was contactless payment from your phone.

Don't get me started on the tube. That will never happen here. But yeah, could we feasibly have double decker buses everywhere?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Real question: what would it cost to create a bus system like that of London? I just got back and Jesus that was so fking easy and amazing. I don't understand why America doesn't have double decker buses. I believe the new ones are electric and to board all you needed was contactless payment from your phone.

Don't get me started on the tube. That will never happen here. But yeah, could we feasibly have double decker buses everywhere?

It's probably not worth it here. We can use longer (bendy) buses instead.

We have wider streets, and can accommodate wider turning radiuses.

The bendy buses have better accessibility and faster boarding too.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It's probably not worth it here. We can use longer (bendy) buses instead.

We have wider streets, and can accommodate wider turning radiuses.

The bendy buses have better accessibility and faster boarding too.

But bendy buses aren’t cool. Riders aren’t going to take photos of them for social media. Make it a double decker bus with a distinctive paint job……now we are cooking with gas.

Why don’t we at least bring back “the Dillo”? Why did get we rid of it? Was it that nobody used it?

[Maximusx1]

Originally Posted by urbancore

But bendy buses aren’t cool. Riders aren’t going to take photos of them for social media. Make it a double decker bus with a distinctive paint job……now we are cooking with gas.

Why don’t we at least bring back “the Dillo”? Why did get we rid of it? Was it that nobody used it?

Ok now I can agree with this. Bring back the Dillo!

Circulate drunks and tourists from 5th, 6th and Rainey:
East down 5th Street from Campbell to San Jacinto to Cesar Chavez to Red River to Driskill to Rainey to River/Holly to San Marcos to 5th Street to Chicon to Sixth Street west all the way back down to Campbell.

Keeps tourists and drunks from driving, scootering and taking short uber rides.

[ATX2030]

CTRMA to give MoPac South expansion project update Thursday

by: Grace Reader
Posted: Jun 15, 2023 / 03:06 PM CDT
Updated: Jun 15, 2023 / 03:06 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/south-a...date-thursday/

[Echostatic]

I've given up on that project being built before I die.

[drummer]

Rethink35 drops I-35 lawsuit, eyes new legal action against downtown segment
by: Kelsey Thompson

“The last time we had any significant expansion on this section of I-35 was in the mid-1970s,” Tucker Ferguson, TxDOT’s Austin district engineer, told KXAN in January. “So we have not kept up with the pace of population growth and traffic growth numbers.”

KXAN

This got me thinking - when were the upper decks added? Was that in the 70s?

[Echostatic]

Originally Posted by drummer

Rethink35 drops I-35 lawsuit, eyes new legal action against downtown segment
by: Kelsey Thompson

KXAN

This got me thinking - when were the upper decks added? Was that in the 70s?

Opened 1975.

[ATX2030]

I-35 Expansion Renderings

Nathan Bernier
@KUTnathan

https://twitter.com/KUTnathan/status...C86b_UursuAAAA

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by ATX2030

I-35 Expansion Renderings

Nathan Bernier
@KUTnathan

https://twitter.com/KUTnathan/status...C86b_UursuAAAA

vomitous project but if this is happening, the caps look ok in these renders.

[Lobotomizer]

It's better for pedestrians.

It's better for bicyclists.

It's better for transit.

It's much less ugly.

It's removes a barrier between East and West, greatly improving connectivity.

But, I guess because it also better for cars some will still choose to oppose the project.

That's a head scratcher for me.

[Maximusx1]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

It's better for pedestrians.

It's better for bicyclists.

It's better for transit.

It's much less ugly.

It's removes a barrier between East and West, greatly improving connectivity.

But, I guess because it also better for cars some will still choose to oppose the project.

That's a head scratcher for me.

Agree on all counts and why I'm all for it. Only negative for me is how long it will take to get done. By the time they finish we may (seriously) all be in self-driving electric cars.

[lzppjb]

I like it.

As for the $800 million Austin has to come up with for the caps, can we just do like 1 or 2 at a time?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

It's better for pedestrians.

It's better for bicyclists.

arguable. There's already sidewalks alongside most of I35, so it isn't really filling big gaps that way. And now those pedestrians will be walking alongside twice as many cars/noise/pollution.

And some of the crossings have become much longer, with a bunch of switchbacks to actually cross, navigating multiple slip lanes, etc.

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

It's better for transit.

slightly, though we'll see how congested the lanes become, since they're not adding tolls.

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

It's much less ugly.

subjective. Twice as wide. And while they're losing the upper decks in one spot, they're _adding_ them further south. So that's a wash.

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

It's removes a barrier between East and West, greatly improving connectivity.

it doesn't really remove it. It may add an additional crossing here and there, but crossings are still few and far between especially further north.

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

But, I guess because it also better for cars some will still choose to oppose the project.

That's a head scratcher for me.

Cost (and opportunity cost, if you wanted to improve things for pedestrians/bikes/transit there's so much better things to spend money on).
Years/decade of construction.
Wiping out lots of homes and businesses.
Promising "no wider" and then turning around and massively expanding the footprint.


You may support it, but it shouldn't be surprising that there's reasons people don't.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I like it.

As for the $800 million Austin has to come up with for the caps, can we just do like 1 or 2 at a time?

Supposedly if Austin doesn't have the money when TxDot starts, they won't do the prep work for the caps and they'll be impossible to add later.