AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[austlar1]

We don't need a "subway system" in Austin. We need a subway tunnel through the most congested parts of downtown and the UT area that could carry light rail trains that would run (hopefully on dedicated ROWs) at surface level on a variety of rail lines built out over the next 10 to 20 years and serving various parts of the metro area. The tunnel portion would "collect" this traffic and carry it swiftly and efficiently through the center of the city. The tunnel portion would probably only be about two miles long. Pricey? Yes. Worth it? Yes, assuming that voters finally approve a master plan for expanding rail transit in the Austin area over the next few decades.

[Tech House]

I think I agree with all of this^^^. My experience with quality urban transit in the US is limited to fast subway systems like Boston, San Francisco, and NYC, plus the El in Chicago. Boston seems like the best example for comparison with Austin. I loved that I could abandon my car at one of the perimeter mega parking facilities and then zip quickly into the heart of the city. Who wants to drive around a congested downtown of any big city?

Trains are awesome, but light rail seems kind of slow. Is that not true? School me. I've not been on the light rail in Denver or Portland, but I've hung out around stops along those routes and in both cities it seems like the rail is a focal point for a lot of appealing development. I hate driving in Portland and I've never thought I'd want to live there, but when I was there this summer I found an area of town that was new to me, and I spent some time at a few businesses right along the rail line. It was all so appealing that I started fantasizing about not having a car and how much money that would save me, then I could live in a place that has good public transit and I'd be able to afford more in rent.

It's a shame that Austin is so far behind in developing rail, but I did vote against the recent bond for the reason that I feared it would kill any chance of getting a more serious, effective, fast subway through the core of the city. But obviously it would be ridiculous to try to extend a subway to the suburbs here. Like you said, we need lots of surface spur lines to the outlying population centers. It will make this city much more attractive in the long run, and will be worth the cost.

[AusTxDevelopment]

What that Business Journal article that I posted earlier doesn't make very clear is that during his presentation, Meredith said that he and several other wealthy 'tech titans' were considering buying one of those massive underground boring machines. Just for Austin to have, you know, out back in the shed in case we need it. So when we finally get the government to fund the subway system, we'd already have a drill. A bit unrealistic, but that's just my jaded opinion. At least they are thinking about options, unlike the City and CapMetro who seem to decide what they want in advance, pretend to get public input, then go with their original idea and try to get the public to agree to it. It's why rail has failed twice.

BTW, this it an example of what Meredith & others are thinking about buying:


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4029/...3a288eb8_z.jpg

[austlar1]

Light rail on a dedicated ROW is not slow at all unless there are frequent stops. Muni Metro in San Francisco is light rail. All of the trains running underground in the Twin Peaks tunnel and under Market Street to the Ferry Building are light rail trains that emerge above ground mostly west of Twin Peaks (the J Church and N Judah lines emerge below the Mint Bldg near Duboce and Market) to fan out to different parts of SF. They do slow down a bit on parts of the the above ground routes mostly because they do not always run in a dedicated ROW, or there are traffic lights even for the dedicated ROW. Most people assume that Muni Metro is heavy rail because it runs for the downtown portion along the same route also used one level lower underground by heavy rail BART trains. The Bart tunnel and Muni Metro tunnels are actually separate. One or two of the Boston lines are also light rail. I think the Green line is light rail. It is pretty swift running. The DART trains in Dallas also make good time when they are operating in dedicated ROW and especially further out in the suburbs. Once DART bites the bullet and builds underground in downtown Dallas, I think they will have a real big city and suburban combo in place that will eventually carry a whole lot more people. They are already over the 100,000 daily riders mark.

[drummer]

Having lived and worked in China and visited other countries with quality rail (HSR/subway/etc), I'm very much a fan. I've ridden the DART multiple times and have actually been pretty impressed. My in-laws live near one of the stops in the northern suburbs. I hope that some kind of rail is possible for Austin in the relatively near future.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

What that Business Journal article that I posted earlier doesn't make very clear is that during his presentation, Meredith said that he and several other wealthy 'tech titans' were considering buying one of those massive underground boring machines. Just for Austin to have, you know, out back in the shed in case we need it. So when we finally get the government to fund the subway system, we'd already have a drill. A bit unrealistic, but that's just my jaded opinion. At least they are thinking about options, unlike the City and CapMetro who seem to decide what they want in advance, pretend to get public input, then go with their original idea and try to get the public to agree to it. It's why rail has failed twice.

BTW, this it an example of what Meredith & others are thinking about buying:


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4029/...3a288eb8_z.jpg

I think Meredith must be an attention whore, just trying to get press. Why in the world would you buy a many-multi-million dollar piece of equipment, then let it sit around for 10-20 years (or much more) requiring maintenance and depreciating all the time? Then by the time a "subway" is actually approved, technology has moved on and the new boring machines are much better and/or cheaper.

It doesn't make sense on any level!

_If_ a subway plan is ever approved, there will be a run-up of years of design/planning, permitting, federal approvals, etc. Plenty of time to order a boring machine then.

[AusTxDevelopment]

More subway talk.

Tuttle says it cost Los Angeles about $600-700 million per mile of subway as opposed to the $150-200 million it would cost here. It could potentially cost $1.5 billion for the first 10-mile starter line.

"Limestone is about half the density of concrete. It's stable. It's soft to dig through. You can dig through it very quickly. With a tunnel boring machine, you can dig about a mile a month one of these tunnels," said Tuttle.

Two rail lines would sit side-by-side about 50 to 75 feet below the surface of Austin stretching 20 miles.

Tuttle believes the first line could run the same north and south route as Lamar or Guadalupe.

Before you go trying to by a subway pass, Tuttle believes it could be five or six years before there's a plan and funding.

KVUE
Serious discussions underway about Austin subway system
http://www.kvue.com/story/news/local...stem/21723071/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

More subway talk.



KVUE
Serious discussions underway about Austin subway system
http://www.kvue.com/story/news/local...stem/21723071/

Ludicrous. He's an electrical engineer, so he's quite literally as qualified as I am to talk about these things.

I don't care how easy it is to dig, I don't see how that cuts _more_ than 3/4 of the cost. You still have to concrete/finish the tunnel. Install ventilation and emergency accessways. Install rail and third rail. Build stations and pedestrian access to the stations. Eminent domain or otherwise acquire surface access for the stations. Build the surface maintenance yard for the rolling stock. Build park and ride stations on the outer limits.

Then add 6-7 years of inflation to the cost estimate to really compare against LA.

[ivanwolf]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Ludicrous. He's an electrical engineer, so he's quite literally as qualified as I am to talk about these things.

I don't care how easy it is to dig, I don't see how that cuts _more_ than 3/4 of the cost. You still have to concrete/finish the tunnel. Install ventilation and emergency accessways. Install rail and third rail. Build stations and pedestrian access to the stations. Eminent domain or otherwise acquire surface access for the stations. Build the surface maintenance yard for the rolling stock. Build park and ride stations on the outer limits.

Then add 6-7 years of inflation to the cost estimate to really compare against LA.

I would think the guy is wanting to help with $ either help find funds like investors or something, not be the designer.

Cutting through solid Granite vs our Limestone would require more time as its harder to cut through, and stopping to change out things like cutting heads that would be chewed up more are things that make Granite more expensive. I think a lot of the cost difference could be labor time and some material cost. The news said they could go a mile a month in Limestone, I don't think they could get that far in Granite.

I would hope it would be very little above ground work, just a stair/escalator and an elevator. That's not much space.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

Cutting through solid Granite vs our Limestone would require more time as its harder to cut through, and stopping to change out things like cutting heads that would be chewed up more are things that make Granite more expensive. I think a lot of the cost difference could be labor time and some material cost. The news said they could go a mile a month in Limestone, I don't think they could get that far in Granite.

That's just it. Cutting through the rock is _just_ the first part of construction. The rest of which is invariant.

Look at it this way, they say they can cut a mile a month in limestone. The waller creek tunnel (1.5 miles) is taking 4 years to construct. Which (if his estimates are anywhere correct) puts cutting time at like 5% of the construction time.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That's just it. Cutting through the rock is _just_ the first part of construction. The rest of which is invariant.

Look at it this way, they say they can cut a mile a month in limestone. The waller creek tunnel (1.5 miles) is taking 4 years to construct. Which (if his estimates are anywhere correct) puts cutting time at like 5% of the construction time.

You don't have to finish the boring in order to start constructing the rail. You build the rail as you finish each section of the boring.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You don't have to finish the boring in order to start constructing the rail. You build the rail as you finish each section of the boring.

You _start_ building the rail. Putting down rail takes longer than a month /mile. The failed Austin rail plan took longer than that (his claim of 10 months) for construction, and that could have done many sections in parallel.


Look, I'd love for Austin to improve transportation/transit. But this just seems like a pie in the sky proposal (very short on details, and those that are supplied seem extremely sketchy) from a guy who is completely unqualified to even start asking the right questions.


Okay, look at it this way. Let's say speed in boring time _directly_ results in cost reductions. So what's the difference between fast and slow boring times?

I found this study, and they seemed to see a boring time variation of at most 3x (table 5)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...74775513001224

Say granite is even harder, and takes, let's say 5 times what it takes to bore through Austin limestone. 5x faster in one subset of the project results in the _whole_ project being 5 times cheaper? 700M /mile down to $150M /mile

[austlar1]

Cut and cover tunnel construction would not require any tunnel digging equipment and would cost a lot less. Usually this involves the street being torn up (or dug up) and covered with planking while the track is put down just below the surface of the street. Muni Metro along Market St. is cut and cover. I lived there while it was built, so I know how it works. Also the part of the LA Red Line that runs under Wilshire, Vermont, and Hollywood Blvd. was built using cut and cover. Other parts of the Red line use a deeper tunnel. The idea of a long deep tunnel underground system in Austin is probably not realistic. We need a two or three mile tunnel through the most congested parts of the city. It is viable providing we also have a plan to build an extensive system of light rail serving the rest of the city and the suburbs that would utilize this tunnel to bring passengers to and through the center of town.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Cut and cover tunnel construction would not require any tunnel digging equipment and would cost a lot less. Usually this involves the street being torn up (or dug up) and covered with planking while the track is put down just below the surface of the street. .....The idea of a long deep tunnel underground system in Austin is probably not realistic. We need a two or three mile tunnel through the most congested parts of the city. It is viable providing we also have a plan to build an extensive system of light rail serving the rest of the city and the suburbs that would utilize this tunnel to bring passengers to and through the center of town.

I'll agree, any tunnel in Austin doesn't need to be very long. Likewise, neither would an elevated guideway.

But, Austin has hilly terrain, which doesn't usually lean itself to cut and cover tunneling methods. Train operators would love to minimize changes in grades, building as much track as possible at a single grade. As the hill rises, the tunnel runs deeper. Downtown Austin isn't as level in the north to south direction as it is in the east to west direction - just about everyone wants a north to south alignment - which pretty much eliminates cut and cover.

There is a valid reason why the Red Line, using a pre-existing rail corridor, runs east before turning north and then northwestward around UT and the state capitol area - i.e. The pre-existing railroad wanted to avoid grade changes.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by electricron

I'll agree, any tunnel in Austin doesn't need to be very long. Likewise, neither would an elevated guideway.

But, Austin has hilly terrain, which doesn't usually lean itself to cut and cover tunneling methods. Train operators would love to minimize changes in grades, building as much track as possible at a single grade. As the hill rises, the tunnel runs deeper. Downtown Austin isn't as level in the north to south direction as it is in the east to west direction - just about everyone wants a north to south alignment - which pretty much eliminates cut and cover.

There is a valid reason why the Red Line, using a pre-existing rail corridor, runs east before turning north and then northwestward around UT and the state capitol area - i.e. The pre-existing railroad wanted to avoid grade changes.

Have you been to San Francisco? The cut and cap portion their is more hilly than anything in Austin.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by electricron

I'll agree, any tunnel in Austin doesn't need to be very long. Likewise, neither would an elevated guideway.

But, Austin has hilly terrain, which doesn't usually lean itself to cut and cover tunneling methods. Train operators would love to minimize changes in grades, building as much track as possible at a single grade. As the hill rises, the tunnel runs deeper. Downtown Austin isn't as level in the north to south direction as it is in the east to west direction - just about everyone wants a north to south alignment - which pretty much eliminates cut and cover.

There is a valid reason why the Red Line, using a pre-existing rail corridor, runs east before turning north and then northwestward around UT and the state capitol area - i.e. The pre-existing railroad wanted to avoid grade changes.

The original IRT lines (7th Av/Bway line and the Lex. Ave line) in Manhattan both climb considerably heading north from Midtown, especially on the upper West Side and above Murray Hil on the East Side. Both lines were built almost a century ago using cut and cover. Both lines run just below street level for almost all of their Manhattan runs. Market St. in SF from the Ferry Bldg. to the entrance to the Twin Peaks Tunnel at Castro St. climbs almost the entire length of the Muni Metro Market St. Tunnel, which was built entirely with cut and cover. The change in elevation south to north in downtown Austin and around the campus area is not anywhere near as dramatic. I think you are dead wrong that cut and cover could not be used on the streets of downtown Austin and in the campus area.

[lzppjb]

What about a combo? Tunnel in the North where it needs to be deeper, then cut and cap closer to the river.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

What about a combo? Tunnel in the North where it needs to be deeper, then cut and cap closer to the river.

The only place where a deeper cut may be needed is for the two or three blocks between 7th and 10th where the incline is rather abrupt and a wee bit steep. I doubt that the total difference in elevation between downtown south of 7th and the relatively flat area in the campus vicinity is more than 40 feet. A combo might be a solution, but the kind of equipment discussed earlier would be overkill for a cut and cover combo. I don't really care what method is used, but I think deep tunnel excavation is more costly in dollars. Cut and cover makes a bigger mess at street level and causes more disruption of normal traffic, etc. Streets are usually impacted for about two to three years with roadways torn up and then temporarily replaced by planking, etc.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austlar1

The only place where a deeper cut may be needed is for the two or three blocks between 7th and 10th where the incline is rather abrupt and a wee bit steep. I doubt that the total difference in elevation between downtown south of 7th and the relatively flat area in the campus vicinity is more than 40 feet. A combo might be a solution, but the kind of equipment discussed earlier would be overkill for a cut and cover combo. I don't really care what method is used, but I think deep tunnel excavation is more costly in dollars. Cut and cover makes a bigger mess at street level and causes more disruption of normal traffic, etc. Streets are usually impacted for about two to three years with roadways torn up and then temporarily replaced by planking, etc.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, they already looked at going underground in this section for the last urban rail proposal.

I seem to remember that one of the slide decks (city council or transportation council) had a side view of the proposed tunnel and the topography. I'll see if I can find that.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, they already looked at going underground in this section for the last urban rail proposal.

I seem to remember that one of the slide decks (city council or transportation council) had a side view of the proposed tunnel and the topography. I'll see if I can find that.

Okay, found one (not sure if this is the one I saw before).

http://www.austintexas.gov/departmen...140522-reg.htm

The "Project Connect Central Corridor Update." (direct link doesn't seem to work).

Page 30.

It has a profile of the tunnel options they looked at. They don't go into if they were planning cut and cover or not (presumably not with the section under the lake?). But it appears that once you get up to 17th, it's about at the same altitude as Cesar Chavez.