[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by electricron

Thanks for posting that link. It confirms much of what I wrote earlier. 2 dedicated lanes for tracks and 2 traffic lanes for at least a mile, more likely for more than 4 miles. Where the corridor was too tight for even that, 2 dedicated lanes for tracks and just one traffic lane.

They planned on 11 feet wide traffic lanes and 13 feet wide dedicated lanes for tracks - only 11 feet wide at stations. They were able to maintain 5 feet wide bike lanes. At the stations shown, platforms were around 15 feet wide whether an island or side platforms. From curb to curb, the 2000 plan required
<5 feet bike lane><11 feet traffic><26 feet train><11 feet traffic><5 feet bike> = 58 feet. Add 15 feet or so for an island platform = 73 feet.

The 2000 plan did not send light rail north of Airport, turning instead onto the rail corridor. If the light rail line continued on Lamar north of Airport, Lamar would need to be 20 feet wider for 2 additional traffic lanes with bike lanes, or 10 feet wider without the bike lanes. That's 78 or 68 feet between stations, and 93 or 83 feet at island platform stations. I don't see how there could be 4 lanes of traffic on Lamar south of Airport. And some sort of time or physical separation between light rail and commuter rail would be required to be built at the train corridor

So, traffic heading north of the couplet pair inn downtown Austin, which is effectively a 3 to 4 lane one way street is reduced to just 1 northbound lane. If you think traffic backs up now, imagine how much worse it would have been using this plan. Half the existing traffic on the corridor would have to disappear, reroute, or take the train.

The Rapid Transit Project did propose some widening of Lamar north of the triangle. See the Brentwood / Highlands Neighborhood Plan ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/Austi...ighland-np.pdf (page 93) and Crestview / Wooten Neighborhood Plan ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/Austi...-wooten-np.pdf (page 62) for details.