AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[resansom]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well said. Regardless of cost, Austin has one chance to get this right. If they make the wrong decision, businesses and citizens would have to suffer the consequences for decades and Austin would suffer another blow to its "world class" reputation.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by ohhey

cut costs elsewhere.

Oh it’s so simple then, right? The problem is where do you possibly cut?. The problem is that no other part of PC comes remotely close to the cost of the subway so each cut of service you make, makes the overall system worse. You could be left with nothing except the subway. A subway to nowhere.


The best we could do is delay LRT for a few years while we save money or maybe borrow the money we need with a bond but I don’t know the legal ability of us to do that. That’s also indirectly choosing to delay other parts of the plan since we’ll have to serve those interest payments. Maybe that is the best option but it’s annoying how it’s going to be framed.

The mistake IMO was cutting down the tax rate ask from the 10 bill plan to 7. We might still be a little short but at least we would be in line to build what became the the initial investment after they chose the lower tax rate in the 1st round of construction. As of now, we don’t have enough to really get started if we want to open in 2029.

[papertowelroll]

I think with rail, it's better to build a smaller system that is very high quality over a larger low quality system. We already have a large low quality system: Cap Metro busses. I'd rather increase the frequency of those busses and add more bus/bike-only lanes than build a crappy streetcar system.

So IMO, build the subway portion downtown, and if we need to cut costs shelve some of the surface lines. I'd start by cutting the SoCo portion but I think if needed some of the coverage north of UT could be on the chopping block as well. I think UT to Riverside through downtown underground is the most essential portion of the project. Though it might make sense to go ahead and keep ABIA as well for the maintenance yard and the public perception win that is airport connectivity.

[ohhey]

Originally Posted by freerover

The mistake IMO was cutting down the tax rate ask from the 10 bill plan to 7.

At least we can agree on that!

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

I think with rail, it's better to build a smaller system that is very high quality over a larger low quality system. We already have a large low quality system: Cap Metro busses. I'd rather increase the frequency of those busses and add more bus/bike-only lanes than build a crappy streetcar system.

Nobody is proposing a "crappy streetcar system".

Even if they end up doing at grade rail through downtown, the result would be a very high quality transit system, equal or better than most US systems.

It would be light rail vehicles (plural, joined trainsets), with light rail capacities, traveling in an exclusive right of way, for long distance (15-20 miles of track) at high frequencies.

Crappy streetcar systems are small capacity vehicles (bus sized) almost always in a shared lane with other traffic, traveling short routes (sometimes not even bidirectional, but a loop).

There's no real advantage of streetcar over buses, other than nostalgia factor for some people. The opposite for the proposed Austin light rail.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

The mistake IMO was cutting down the tax rate ask from the 10 bill plan to 7. We might still be a little short but at least we would be in line to build what became the the initial investment after they chose the lower tax rate in the 1st round of construction. As of now, we don’t have enough to really get started if we want to open in 2029.

The problem with that is that we'd then be quote/unquote "committed" to building that 10B system, that would have suddenly become a 16B system. The budget shortfall would have been even greater (the orange extensions and Gold line would have experienced the same cost inflation cost increases as the existing proposal).

It would have given more things to potentially cut, but even more interested parties arguing against cutting the part of the system that serves them.

Slightly better situation, but only a bit.

And of course, that's assuming the 10B system would have passed. Likely, given the margin, but the double-digit number undoubtedly would have swayed some opposition.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by resansom

Well said. Regardless of cost, Austin has one chance to get this right. If they make the wrong decision, businesses and citizens would have to suffer the consequences for decades and Austin would suffer another blow to its "world class" reputation.

Austin wouldn't suffer the consequences until decades later, if ever.
The main purpose of the depressed lanes downtown is for future capacity.

[SproutingTowers]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Nobody is proposing a "crappy streetcar system".

Even if they end up doing at grade rail through downtown, the result would be a very high quality transit system, equal or better than most US systems.

It would be light rail vehicles (plural, joined trainsets), with light rail capacities, traveling in an exclusive right of way, for long distance (15-20 miles of track) at high frequencies.

Crappy streetcar systems are small capacity vehicles (bus sized) almost always in a shared lane with other traffic, traveling short routes (sometimes not even bidirectional, but a loop).

There's no real advantage of streetcar over buses, other than nostalgia factor for some people. The opposite for the proposed Austin light rail.

Houston’s METRO is all above ground and seems to work well, but not as speedy as an underground system.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by SproutingTowers

Houston’s METRO is all above ground and seems to work well, but not as speedy as an underground system.

Houston's metro is the sort of thing I had in mind when I said "crappy streetcar system".. It's nice for people that are afraid of buses, but it's not really much better than a bus. I will say that I'd still take it over our red line which has it's own right of way but has a horrible route with few stations that are mostly in uninteresting locations.

I think Houston's rail line is actually slower than the Cap Metro 801 for comparison... It takes almost an hour to go 13 miles. I'd like to see Austin build actual rapid transit.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

Houston's metro is the sort of thing I had in mind when I said "crappy streetcar system".. It's nice for people that are afraid of buses, but it's not really much better than a bus. I will say that I'd still take it over our red line which has it's own right of way but has a horrible route with few stations that are mostly in uninteresting locations.

I think Houston's rail line is actually slower than the Cap Metro 801 for comparison... It takes almost an hour to go 13 miles. I'd like to see Austin build actual rapid transit.

Austin does not have the population density or even the zoning capacity to support true rapid rail transit. Many argue that we don’t even have the population density to support light rail transit (not my position).

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Austin does not have the population density or even the zoning capacity to support true rapid rail transit. Many argue that we don’t even have the population density to support light rail transit (not my position).

Of course we have the density for light rail. We need to be planning for the future, people!!!

[randalls]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Of course we have the density for light rail. We need to be planning for the future, people!!!

We definitely have the population density for light rail. I grew up in Charlotte, and when they started building the light rail there all the critics said the same thing - we didn't have the density for it, and no one would use it. When the light rail opened there years ago (and at the time the city of Charlotte had a much smaller population than what Austin has now) the light rail became an instant success from Day 1. Heavy ridership, and they found people from the suburbs enjoyed commuting in on the rail instead of their own cars. They ended up adding more parking garages along light rail stops in the suburbs so people could drive themselves to the parking garages, then hop on the rail for the rest of the way into downtown (or "Uptown" as they call it in Charlotte).

[freerover]

Originally Posted by randalls

We definitely have the population density for light rail. I grew up in Charlotte, and when they started building the light rail there all the critics said the same thing - we didn't have the density for it, and no one would use it. When the light rail opened there years ago (and at the time the city of Charlotte had a much smaller population than what Austin has now) the light rail became an instant success from Day 1. Heavy ridership, and they found people from the suburbs enjoyed commuting in on the rail instead of their own cars. They ended up adding more parking garages along light rail stops in the suburbs so people could drive themselves to the parking garages, then hop on the rail for the rest of the way into downtown (or "Uptown" as they call it in Charlotte).

This. The most important thing we can do is to make sure that part of this plan is built soon. That will unlock a lot of political hurdles with future efforts to expand the system and soliciting funds from various municipalities.

I can deal with losing the subway but it would be nice to have some kind of elevated portions that comply with state CVC laws. It would suck for the system to get bogged down downtown as we expand spurs out in every direction. Grade separation over East and West 6th is ideal but the terrain slope on the east side is pretty drastic.

[enragedcamel]

I was in London last week, and every time I took the Underground it left me astounded and also sad. The latter because I realized Austin will never have such an efficient rapid transit system.

But you know what? At this point, I'll take anything we can get.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Of course we have the density for light rail. We need to be planning for the future, people!!!

Light rail is not true rapid rail transit, with lower frequency.

[gillynova]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Light rail is not true rapid rail transit, with lower frequency.

At least it gives the option for people to use. And it WILL take some cars off the street

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by gillynova

At least it gives the option for people to use. And it WILL take some cars off the street

I agree, and I also agree that Austin has the population density necessary for light rail.

[Novacek]

Meeting packet is up for the tri party meeting tomorrow.

https://atptx.org/docs/librariesprov...packet_atp.pdf

No real details on light rail (though is that a dashed blue line on 3rd street?)

Grade separation of red line at Lamar starts applying for federal grants late this year.

[calesce]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Meeting packet is up for the tri party meeting tomorrow.

https://atptx.org/docs/librariesprov...packet_atp.pdf

No real details on light rail (though is that a dashed blue line on 3rd street?)

"Identified additional Maintenance Facility sites" from slide 33 -- could there be a possibility of a site that's not near the airport so they could build the orange line first? There weren't any good candidates along the initial investment alignment between NLTC and Stassney, but perhaps they've reduced the minimum requirement of 60 acres for the facility and have some options. (I personally don't mind the existing site option and having us building the blue line - downtown - UT leg first)

Originally Posted by Novacek

Grade separation of red line at Lamar starts applying for federal grants late this year.

Do we know the scope/cost of this project? The only design I've seen was from the April Crestview Station orange line presentation, where the trenched red line / street-level orange line configuration was much more expensive than the existing red line / elevated orange line option:



Presumably the elevated orange line station alternative is more expensive than its at-grade counterpart, so that would make the red line trench alone a good chunk higher than the $175-225 million, unless they've value engineered it down.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Meeting packet is up for the tri party meeting tomorrow.

https://atptx.org/docs/librariesprov...packet_atp.pdf

No real details on light rail (though is that a dashed blue line on 3rd street?)

Grade separation of red line at Lamar starts applying for federal grants late this year.

Maybe they are thinking about splitting EB and WB trains along 4th and 3rd. Not unusual but it would require an underground station that runs from 4th to 3rd on congress or two at grade stations at Congress if we go that route. I imagine splitting the lines like this would make those 90 degree turns a lot easier if there was only 1 track per block.