AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by 427MM

We all know that while we're kicking ass in a thousand ways as a city, our transportation system is sad. But we can work to change this. If you're on Facebook, 'Like' Austin Gets Around. When you're teaveling, post photos of how you're getting around. Join in on the events and the field trips. Most of all, speak up and be sure to vote!

"Austin Gets Around" is an astroturfing group created by the consultants behind the current disaster of an urban rail plan. Don't be fooled; there is nothing grassroots about this effort.

[427MM]

Originally Posted by M1EK

"Austin Gets Around" is an astroturfing group created by the consultants behind the current disaster of an urban rail plan. Don't be fooled; there is nothing grassroots about this effort.

Haha, sure, Mike. If the six of us that are running Austin Gets Around are consultants, we're reeeeaaaaly bad at it seeing as how we're putting in hundreds of hours of our own time and not getting paid...

[KevinFromTexas]

This. is. awesome! I so wish Austin had something like this. Check the link for links to maps with photos and info.

http://www.bigreddog.com/howard-w-pe...n-san-antonio/

Discover the Howard W. Peak Greenway Trail System in San Antonio

Former Mayor of San Antonio Howard W. Peak originally developed the idea of a “ring” of trails encircling San Antonio several years ago, but the concept is now finally close to completion.

The project needs funding for another 32 miles of new trail, to add to the 45 already available and the 41 in development. That’s a grand total of over 100 miles of trailways! The city’s parks and recreation department also provides popular biking and hiking routes on their website, so anyone can go for a jog or cycle on the nearest greenway. We like the downtown paths that take the runner through various must-see spots in San Antonio, whether you’re a tourist or a local.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by 427MM

Haha, sure, Mike. If the six of us that are running Austin Gets Around are consultants, we're reeeeaaaaly bad at it seeing as how we're putting in hundreds of hours of our own time and not getting paid...

Somehow you had money for a big logo contest and a big kick-off meeting. And somehow you've had time to set all this up. And somehow we're expected to believe this is not at the behest of your day-job employer.

Somehow.

AURA is grass roots. AGA is astroturfing. You can tell because 3 city council members with heavily invested political capital showed up at your kick-off, among other things.

[ivanwolf]

I see zero benefit to the Highland light rail route, be it bridge, long or short tunnel. Future airport access is not mean it will ever happen. There is a current dedicated bus route for the airport, secondly a extended freeway will hopefully make it faster. Who is it for? ACC students?

The people should vote NO to the Highland proposal and scream and kick fighting for the North Corridor project, about as much money and it would impact so many more people helping them get to downtown and eventually relieve some traffic on I35.

http://www.projectconnect.com/connect/north-corridor


See this, I found it interesting, not that I want to be packed in like that but some form adapted to Austin would be nice: http://www.streetfilms.org/bus-rapid-transit-bogota/

[texboy]

The airport proposal, albeit a nice idea, is usually best if saved for last. Only having one or two routes that have limited destinations connecting to a line to the airport will mean low ridership averages which would equal pissed off tax payers and the likelihood of future lines being sidelined due to low public interest.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by texboy

The airport proposal, albeit a nice idea, is usually best if saved for last. Only having one or two routes that have limited destinations connecting to a line to the airport will mean low ridership averages which would equal pissed off tax payers and the likelihood of future lines being sidelined due to low public interest.

We should be more worried about the northern route than where it goes south of the river. The "Highland Mall" route is utterly ridiculous! And I believe it is a route designed by those whom wish to kill rail in Austin. Who, in their right and logical mind would seriously consider an "Highland Mall" route? Unless ACC plans on closing all of it's branches and force all of it's 36,000+ students to take classes at "Highland Mall," then there is no reason, proof, and/or numbers to show why that route is more valuable than a North Lamar or North Burnet route.

I somewhat agree with your comment on Riverside...however, why wouldn't the city explore the idea of adding an extra two miles of the Riverside line (to the airport) when that line may end up being one of the most successful in town? Do you know how many UT & ACC students live off of Riverside? Do you realize how many more people are going to be living off of Riverside in the coming five years (with the currently U/C developments)? Why not explore the cost vs. benefit of extending that line to the airport rather than waiting to extend it five-to-ten years after construction starts on the Riverside line...assuming it happens at all? Costs will only increase.

Some tax payers are already pissed off at the current "Red Line" MetroRail. I love the fact that it exists...however, it's route is not what I would have implemented as Austin's initial rail line(s). And, in Austin, you will ALWAYS find your naysayers (i.e., NIMBYS). This city is within the Royal Family of NIMBYS and I am glad to see that their power is waining!

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by texboy

The airport proposal, albeit a nice idea, is usually best if saved for last. Only having one or two routes that have limited destinations connecting to a line to the airport will mean low ridership averages which would equal pissed off tax payers and the likelihood of future lines being sidelined due to low public interest.

Agreed. Personally, I think the airport could be better served more directly with a MetroRail line from the existing Convention Center terminus:

Existing track: Conv Ctr - Plaza Saltillo - Airport Blvd (near Springdale)
New alignment: direct to ABIA

With the 5th St. wye rehab, CapMetro could make the occasional Leander-ABIA run if it chose to...

[audiomuse]

Big changes proposed for busy Austin streets:

http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/...ts-17647.shtml

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

why wouldn't the city explore the idea of adding an extra two miles of the Riverside line (to the airport)

It wouldn't be two miles, it would be 4-5. Riverside and Grove to the terminal comes up at 4.7 on google maps right now (the exact routing of a potential rail line could of course be a bit more or less).

Those 4-5 miles could cost close to _$400 Milllion_ (presumably $200 M local).

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Do you know how many UT & ACC students live off of Riverside?

And how many of those UT/ACC students fly out of bergstrom frequently (we're talking every day or so)?

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Why not explore the cost vs. benefit of extending that line to the airport

We already _can_, as a first order approximation. Just look at the usage levels of bergstrom currently. It's not nearly high enough to justify the additional expense (now, 30 more years could be different).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

Agreed. Personally, I think the airport could be better served more directly with a MetroRail line from the existing Convention Center terminus:

Existing track: Conv Ctr - Plaza Saltillo - Airport Blvd (near Springdale)
New alignment: direct to ABIA

With the 5th St. wye rehab, CapMetro could make the occasional Leander-ABIA run if it chose to...

Now you're talking 5-6 miles of additional _heavy_ rail line, and _another_ river crossing. And even less frequency!

[austin242]

Actually I think south of the river is the most important. If you could only make a line that goes from U.T. to riverside and then extend it to the airport at sometime in the future would be a great Idea. As for is ACC going to put all their students at Highland. Well that is the plan. Closing Rio Grande and Riverside campus and moving the classes to highland while they renovate. Still the most successful route they could create is Riverside area to UT. However it would be best if it goes down riverside from IH35 crosses the river at pleasant valley and connects to the other line at 5th street. Then another extension up maybe Trinity or something like that to U.T from the Convention center. That wouldn't be too much new rail but I feel it would have a huge impact.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Now you're talking 5-6 miles of additional _heavy_ rail line, and _another_ river crossing. And even less frequency!

Whatever type of train they build heading south is going to require another new rail crossing. So a new bridge isn't necessarily going to add additional costs.

5 to 6 miles of new single track heavy rail will almost assuredly cost less than 7 to 8 miles of double track light rail. The heavy rail would most likely be in a dedicated rail corridor, the light rail in dedicated lanes within the existing street. The average speed of the street running light rail trains will certainly not exceed 25 mph on average, the heavy trains should see average speeds well over 35 mph. That proposal is certainly worth studying.

The problem with both proposals is the lack of other ridership besides that generated by the airport itself. The area immediately surrounding the airport to its north isn't developed today. I doubt if many will be willing to develop under jets landing and taking off zones, it's very noisy there. That's why the urban rail proposal initial operating schemes stop miles short of the airport terminal.

Stopping the urban rail short of the airport now is a great idea, imho.

Another important fact I wish to get across is that street running urban rail in downtown Austin isn't going to be very fast. DART's light rail trains in a dedicated street average just 10 mph through it's downtown street mall on Pacific and Bryant Streets. They take 9 minutes to travel 1.5 miles between Pearl and Union Station, and three more additional stations.
METRO's trains in downtown Houston don't go much faster either. It's 1.5 miles between UH-Downtown and McGowen Stations, taking 7 minutes per the schedule, averaging 12 mph. The entire red line takes 50 minutes to travel 12.8 miles, averaging 15.3 mph. DART's entire red line takes 65 minutes to travel 28 miles, averaging 26 mph; including the rather slow 10 mph average through downtown Dallas for a mile and a half. It certainly pays off speed wise to get the trains out of the streets and onto dedicated rail corridors.

Once leaving downtown Austin along Riverside, the average train speeds will increase, but how much will depend upon several factors, station spacing and signal lights priority. Assuming the same average speeds as METRO, 15.3 mph, it's going to take the train over 31 minutes to travel the 8 miles between the convention center at 4th street and the airport terminal.
FYI, CapMetroRail averages 35.5 mph between Leander and downtown Austin, 32 miles and 54 minutes. That's 20 mph faster. In 30 minutes, it should be able to travel 17.5 miles.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

Whatever type of train they build heading south is going to require another new rail crossing. So a new bridge isn't necessarily going to add additional costs.

My interpretation of the proposal of this hypothetical "red line spur" was in addition the the urban rail route, not instead of. In that case, it would be an additional bridge. If instead of, it's still a new bridge, and fails to serve riverside.

Originally Posted by electricron

5 to 6 miles of new single track heavy rail will almost assuredly cost less than 7 to 8 miles of double track light rail. The heavy rail would most likely be in a dedicated rail corridor, the light rail in dedicated lanes within the existing street.

Possibly, though being a new dedicated heavy corridor would mean land acquisition I'm assuming (adding to cost).

It's too bad there isn't an existing legacy freight route to the airport, complete with bridge (or at least I'm not aware of one). Rehabilitating such a route (say on the order of $25 million or so) _could_ make sense, and the ridership and frequency of such a route would be a better match for the red line than the urban rail.

[KevinFromTexas]

White House opens door to tolls on interstate highways, removing long-standing prohibition

[Texas Jeff]

Originally Posted by austin242

If you could only make a line that goes from U.T. to riverside and then extend it to the airport at sometime in the future would be a great Idea.

One big problem with today's light rail route is that UT already provides shuttle bus service to both the Riverside and Red River routes.

If the goal is to get people from Riverside and Red River to UT, we already have that today with buses. If the goal is to connect Highland Mall to downtown, we already have that today with the Red Line, probably faster than light rail.

We could provide killer bus service between the airport and downtown plus radically improve bus service along the Riverside / downtown / UT / Red River / ACC path with far less money than is being proposed for light rail.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

White House opens door to tolls on interstate highways, removing long-standing prohibition

Sweet.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

White House opens door to tolls on interstate highways, removing long-standing prohibition

Hell, the government is paying for everything else...guess they ran out of money.

What a nanny-state in which we live! To pay for it, you'll end up having to pay to drive your kids to school down a tolled residential boulevard. Don't laugh...we're coming to that at some point.

[KevinFromTexas]

Well, people are rabidly against taxes and government spending, and this is the result/consequence of that.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Hell, the government is paying for everything else...guess they ran out of money.

What a nanny-state in which we live! To pay for it, you'll end up having to pay to drive your kids to school down a tolled residential boulevard. Don't laugh...we're coming to that at some point.

Sounds good to me, I don't have any kids.