AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

You know weekend ridership would be much higher if they could run the trains till 3 a.m. instead of midnight. Anybody who goes out Downtown will not leave at 12, majority leave when the bars and clubs close. I know people who live in Cedar Park who would use the train instead of driving DT to go out but that they don't because it stops service so early.

Yeah, it's funny, but traffic on our street usually drops to almost nothing around 11:30 to midnight. You know my street, it's sort of the main one going into our neighborhood. Anyway, every night, though, the traffic pics up considerably between 2:30 and 3:00 am with a bunch of cars in a row. I always take it as meaning these are people coming back from downtown. I even see a few taxis which pretty much reinforces it.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, it's funny, but traffic on our street usually drops to almost nothing around 11:30 to midnight. You know my street, it's sort of the main one going into our neighborhood. Anyway, every night, though, the traffic pics up considerably between 2:30 and 3:00 am with a bunch of cars in a row. I always take it as meaning these are people coming back from downtown. I even see a few taxis which pretty much reinforces it.

I thought I addressed this issue earlier. While there may be more riders at 2 to 3 am, there isn't between 9 pm and 2 am. Diesel trains idle between runs. Idling a train several hours is expensive, waiting for the bars and clubs to close before making its final run.
Another consideration that affects late night operations is track maintenance, which needs to be done when the trains are not running. CapMetroRail runs on a single track line, they have to take the entire line down for track maintenance. As I replied earlier, around the clock train operations requires double tracking the entire corridor, or at least that part of the corridor with late night services.
Lastly, trains are not quiet. Trains run by residential neighborhoods, often within 100 feet of many bedrooms. Residents needing sleep do not like being awaken by late trains. Often EIS planning restricts late night services to avoid more, expensive noise abatement measures. Sound barriers cost $1.5 million per linear mile. I guarantee that late night train services would have forced more sound barriers being erected.

[KevinFromTexas]

That makes sense about the single track, but the noise thing isn't so bad. The commuter train isn't particularly noisy and probably not much more than a bus actually. Of course the horn would be the loudest, but commuter trains are much more quiet than freight is. We live slightly less than a quarter mile from the UP tracks in South Austin near a 4 late crossing, and the trains do run late sometimes. Overnight they usually will only use the horn once or twice and I've noticed it seems like they're able to control the volume by short bursts instead of a long blast. And those tracks do pass by some residential. In my neighborhood south of me there's a street called Boxcar Run where the back of the houses are only 100 feet from the tracks. My brother and I had a friend that lived in one of them, and it felt like the trains ran through their backyard.

Anyway, as I'm typing this now there's actually a train coming by that just blew its horn 4 times. EDIT, and the nearest residences to the tracks are some apartments on the north side of Stassney. The farthest north building in that complex is a mere 40 feet from the tracks.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

Lastly, trains are not quiet. Trains run by residential neighborhoods, often within 100 feet of many bedrooms. Residents needing sleep do not like being awaken by late trains. Often EIS planning restricts late night services to avoid more, expensive noise abatement measures. Sound barriers cost $1.5 million per linear mile. I guarantee that late night train services would have forced more sound barriers being erected.

I'll defer to your knowledge on the issue, and I don't doubt that there are such regulations. Of course, like many such regulations, it's stupid and counterproductive. As someone who lives relatively close to the tracks, I'd much have the commuter trains go by late in the night, as that would ensure that freight wouldn't be running by at the same time. So the regulation intended to reduce noise ends up ensuring that the louder, longer trains go by instead.

[tildahat]

M1EK's latest thoughts on urban rail:

http://m1ek.dahmus.org/?p=795

Discuss.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So if it ran only 3 times per day (equally spaced at 6 AM, Noon, and 6 PM), it would still run "all the time" in your estimation, just not "frequently"? Frequency is a subset of coverage (necessary for, but not sufficient).

Sure. But it operates once an hour through the day, and Capital Metro themselves calls this "all day service". You're playing reductio ad absurdum here.

No, it didn't. Light rail (at least from Capitol Metro) died in 2000. It passed in the city of Austin, and failed in the outer CapMetro suburbs. In the years since, Austin has grown by X%, and the outer suburbs have grown by ~2X%. Suburbanites aren't going to want to pay for something that they don't think benefits them (it actually does in reduced congestion, etc., but that's not how they view it). So they're never going to vote for it (and they now outnumber those in the urban area even more than before). Any future CapMetro initiative for (non-commuter) rail is basically doomed to failure via demographics. The only chance for urban rail is from the city of Austin directly, where fewer in the suburbs get to vote on it (though it's far from a sure thing to pass, since there's plenty of sub-urb within city limits).

Whether or not I agree with your angle above, the 2000 line is still "the best possible light rail line in the metro area". Even if the voters might vote it down (and the 2000 election had multiple things going against it - Krusee forced it to the polls early, in an election where he knew the suburban electorate would be energized to come out and vote for W), it's still the best possible. Not probable, maybe, if I was to buy the electioneering above (I don't; many of the new suburbanites who moved here since 2000 are Californians who could just as easily be targeted as transit-positive voters).

But if the choice is no rail or more commuter rail paid for by Austinites so suburbanites can commute at 2,000 boardings/day, at an operating subsidy of $25/ride? I'll vote no rail, thanks.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

the 2000 line is still "the best possible light rail line in the metro area". Even if the voters might vote it down

If the line isn't possible, it can't be "the best possible".

If it isn't possible to get passed (either because suburbanites in the electorate don't see the value to them, or because urbanites don't want to lose 75% of their traffic lanes), it's not "the best possible" line.

If it isn't possible to pay for it, it's not "the best possible" line. That's the dirty little secret of the 2000 rail plan, it turns out it wasn't actually possible for CapMetro to pay for/implement.

Originally Posted by M1EK

many of the new suburbanites who moved here since 2000 are Californians who could just as easily be targeted as transit-positive voters.

So just because they came from California (though that's not even the majority of Austin's growth, more non-Californians moved here), they're magicly going to be pro-transit? Even though they moved into the suburbs (instead of downtown) when they got here. Even though they chose to move to Texas (perhaps because they didn't like how California spends money).

Originally Posted by M1EK

But if the choice is no rail or more commuter rail paid for by Austinites so suburbanites can commute at 2,000 boardings/day

Leanderites (or whatever they are) also pay CapMetro taxes. Lots of Austinites also ride the metrorail. Your assertion that only Austin pays for it, and only those outside of Austin use it is false.

[Komeht]

I have a question for M1Ek and other experts on Austin urban rail.

I see the starter line as debates being either a line to Mueller or a line up Guadalupe/Lamar. My question is - why not both?

Assuming you can work out the tighter stretch of Guadalupe why not run it up Guadalupe all the way to 45th (or 51 or even 53/North Loop) and then cross town to Mueller.

That way you hit CBD, Capitol Complex, West Campus, North Campus, the Triangle and Mueller.

[KevinFromTexas]

This includes a map.

http://impactnews.com/articles/austi...ortation-plan/

Austin, transit groups unveil long-range regional transportation plan

by Amy Denney
February 5, 2013

The City of Austin and other regional transportation groups announced Feb. 1 a plan for high-capacity transit that will connect seven cities in the next 15 years through urban and commuter rail, bus–rapid transit and express toll lanes.

“The plan is attainable. Now we have to make it happen,” Mayor Lee Leffingwell said at a news conference at City Hall. “We all share in the responsibility to implement it, and not just the elected and appointed officials here today, but our business and community leaders also. We must make this a priority.”

The plan, dubbed Project Connect, includes the MetroRapid bus–rapid transit system that will run along Austin's two busiest corridors: North Lamar Boulevard to South Congress Avenue and on Burnet Road to South Lamar. The system will launch in early 2014 and offer riders more frequent and faster service.

Project Connect also includes the regional rail system proposed by Lone Star Rail running from San Antonio through Austin along the Union Pacific rail line near MoPac and on to Georgetown. The vision calls for the expansion of the Red Line as well as construction of the MoPac express toll lanes scheduled to start this spring or summer.

-

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...-attitude.html

Feb 8, 2013, 5:00am CST
Austin commuters must change attitude, ways; we can’t be so ‘Texan’

Robert Grattan
Staff Writer-
Austin Business Journal

Each morning, about 436,500 Austinites wake up and head to work. The majority are heading downtown, and about 70 percent are driving alone.

“When you look at Central Texas, Austin in particular, 150 people are moving here each day,” said Linda Watson, CEO of Austin’s Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. “That’s putting 70 new cars on the street every day. Even if we had the money and the space to build more freeway, it’d be filled upon opening.”

-

YES!!

http://impactnews.com/articles/aeria...-mass-transit/

Aerial solution to mass transit?

by JP Eichmiller
February 7, 2013

Council hosting public forum to examine feasibility of gondolas

The leaders of Round Rock are looking in a new direction—literally—for options in developing a mass-transit system to cope with the city’s expected continued growth.

Rather than regurgitating traditional transit options such as trains or buses, the city’s public officials are taking an active interest in a revolutionary “aerial-based mass-transit system” that would lift users from the ground in ski lift–style gondolas and drop them off at destinations throughout town.

The system is referred to as The Wire and is the brainchild of a team of planners from Frog Design, an international innovation firm with offices in 14 locations worldwide, including Austin.

-

I might go to this. I'll have to see. I need to work on my brakes before I go.

http://impactnews.com/articles/bike-...nning-process/

South Austin bike ride ties in with yearlong neighborhood planning process

by Kelli Weldon
February 7, 2013

The City of Austin is inviting participants in the South Austin Combined Neighborhood Plan to learn about neighborhood connectivity, bicycle route choice and potential for improvement in their area with a local bike ride and free cycling class Feb. 9.

Local business Bikealot, the City of Austin and the Austin Cycling Association are hosting an hour-long cycling and route choice class led by League of American Bicyclists instructors. After the class, attendees will begin their journey through South Manchaca and Westgate, two neighborhoods that are included in the SACNP planning area, according to Bikealot owner Brad Wimberly.

“People really want to be able to walk and bike in their neighborhood,” he said, noting the bike ride will give residents a chance to consider neighborhood connectivity from a cyclist's perspective. “The way you experience your neighborhood is going to be different depending on whether you're walking, driving or biking.”

The cycling class begins at 9 a.m. Feb. 9 at Bikealot, 4418 Pack Saddle Pass, and the bike ride is expected to last until about 11 a.m.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Komeht

I have a question for M1Ek and other experts on Austin urban rail.

I see the starter line as debates being either a line to Mueller or a line up Guadalupe/Lamar. My question is - why not both?

Assuming you can work out the tighter stretch of Guadalupe why not run it up Guadalupe all the way to 45th (or 51 or even 53/North Loop) and then cross town to Mueller.

That way you hit CBD, Capitol Complex, West Campus, North Campus, the Triangle and Mueller.

If you could add the Highland Mall area to this ideal "Austin" rail line, I think you'd have a real winner. Highland Mall is likely to to have a very large daytime population over the next decade or so, larger than Mueller for sure.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by austlar1

If you could add the Highland Mall area to this ideal "Austin" rail line, I think you'd have a real winner. Highland Mall is likely to to have a very large daytime population over the next decade or so, larger than Mueller for sure.

The Project Connect system plan does all that and more. http://connectcentraltexas.org/docs/...7-v2_34x44.pdf

You have to start with a project that makes sense as a stand alone project (minimum operable segment), with logical termini and access to a maintenance facility and that is affordable to build and operate in the short term.

[nixcity]

Thanks for a link where I can actually see the words. Did anyone else notice that the red line ceases to be the red line where it meets up with urban rail at Crestview? Is it part of their plan to refit that part as a light rail line in the future?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

The Project Connect system plan does all that and more. http://connectcentraltexas.org/docs/...7-v2_34x44.pdf

You have to start with a project that makes sense as a stand alone project (minimum operable segment), with logical termini and access to a maintenance facility and that is affordable to build and operate in the short term.

My question was why can't the starter line do both run up west campus as shown on the map and then at the triangle cross town over to Mueller (perhaps single track down 45), that way the densest parts of Guadalupe and WC are covered, the The Triangle, and Mueller (which will be the densest residential district in the city except for maybe WC by that point.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by Komeht

My question was why can't the starter line do both run up west campus as shown on the map and then at the triangle cross town over to Mueller (perhaps single track down 45), that way the densest parts of Guadalupe and WC are covered, the The Triangle, and Mueller (which will be the densest residential district in the city except for maybe WC by that point.

Anything is possible with unlimited money, but that isn't reality. The Urban Rail finance plan should be out later this year. That will give us a sense of what is actually possible in the short term.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

If the line isn't possible, it can't be "the best possible".

If it isn't possible to get passed (either because suburbanites in the electorate don't see the value to them, or because urbanites don't want to lose 75% of their traffic lanes), it's not "the best possible" line.

If it isn't possible to pay for it, it's not "the best possible" line. That's the dirty little secret of the 2000 rail plan, it turns out it wasn't actually possible for CapMetro to pay for/implement.

Thanks, A4PT sycophant.

1. It passed in the city limits in 2000. It passed overwhelmingly in the area where 75% of traffic lanes were going to be lost. Even though the election was rigged by Krusee.

2. Assuming this election would NOT be rigged by Krusee, and knowing that the last election lost by 1500 votes or so, it is most definitely a lie for you to pretend that it's "not possible" for a new election to succeed.

3. Capital Metro counted on a 50% Federal match, which they would have easily gotten. Bonding would have been required. They would, in fact, have been able to pull it off - and when done, it wouldn't have required $35/ride operating subsidies like the Red Line did at opening (it's down to something like $25/ride now!)

4. The only suburb that matters for the next rail election is Leander, because the other ones aren't going to get to vote on it. The # of people who moved into Austin since 2000 is, I bet, equal or more than the # that moved into Leander.

Leanderites (or whatever they are) also pay CapMetro taxes. Lots of Austinites also ride the metrorail. Your assertion that only Austin pays for it, and only those outside of Austin use it is false.

The number of riders who live in Austin or Leander compared to those who live outside the taxing area (i.e. Cedar Park, Round Rock, Pflugerville, Liberty Hill, etc.) is small. I never claimed it to be absolutely zero (although sometimes a 140 character limit makes a paraphrase necessary); but I believe the evidence shows that most of the riders are not from Austin itself. I've written about it on the blog and had it confirmed by a rider, most recently here:

http://m1ek.dahmus.org/?p=761

I've backed up my claims. Time for you to back up yours.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

The Project Connect system plan does all that and more. http://connectcentraltexas.org/docs/...7-v2_34x44.pdf

You have to start with a project that makes sense as a stand alone project (minimum operable segment), with logical termini and access to a maintenance facility and that is affordable to build and operate in the short term.

What SecretAgentMan did here is classic for him - tell the truth and mislead you at the same time.

It's true that the Project Connect system plan includes a line up Guadalupe/Lamar, continuing on existing Red Line ROW to roughly Howard.

It's also true, and this is the important part that (he?) left out: that is the very last part of the plan in the schedule, and it's not until sometime in the 2040s - when I, and many (most?) of the readers of this forum will be retired.

The maintenance facility issue is nothing but the latest convenient excuse. Scott Morris from a parallel effort has made the case that the 183 area could easily provide enough space for a maintenance facility at minimal cost.

The real reason they're trying desperately to avoid talking about Lamar/Guadalupe, which every other city would do first, is because of Rapid Bus - it creates huge political and financial problems for urban rail. Politically, the city would have to have the balls to do what it did in 2006 - stand up to Capital Metro and argue that Rapid Bus really isn't worth a hill of beans (and no, it isn't). Financially, now that the city failed to stop Rapid Bus the second time around (circa 2009ish), the Feds are in on 80% of the (small) bill and would logically resist requests for funding for urban rail in the same corridor.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Thanks, A4PT sycophant.

Maybe you could limit yourself to facts instead of immature name-calling.

Originally Posted by M1EK

1. It passed in the city limits in 2000.

And since 2000, the city of Austin has become _more_ suburban (density has decreased). Source: http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...2000-2010.html

The overall electorate has become _more_ like the portions of the electorate that rejected the 2000 plan.

Originally Posted by M1EK

It passed overwhelmingly in the area where 75% of traffic lanes were going to be lost.

By this I assume you mean the neighborhoods immediately adjacent? But they aren't the only users of those lanes, and every voter in Austin who uses those lanes, and believes (rightly or wrongly) that their removal will adversely affect their travels, is a potential vote against the project.

Originally Posted by M1EK

2. Assuming this election would NOT be rigged by Krusee, and knowing that the last election lost by 1500 votes or so, it is most definitely a lie for you to pretend that it's "not possible" for a new election to succeed.

It isn't likely, given changes in the electorate. You said they should put the "best possible" plan up for a vote, even if it was failure with the voters. That's counterproductive. A good plan that is actually implemented is better than a pie in the sky plan that is immediately dead with the electorate (which a simple repeat of the 2000 plan probably would have been, due to the increasingly hostile electorate).

Originally Posted by M1EK

3. Capital Metro counted on a 50% Federal match, which they would have easily gotten. Bonding would have been required.

Sure, 50% federal match (not guaranteed, but pretty good odds). But the total cost of the project was way more than double what they spent on the red line (not including the inevitable cost overruns). And the red line basically bankrupted Cap Metro. They wouldn't have been able to spend 5 times as much (after federal matching).

Originally Posted by M1EK

They would, in fact, have been able to pull it off - and when done, it wouldn't have required $35/ride operating subsidies like the Red Line did at opening (it's down to something like $25/ride now!)

The per-person subsidy is meaningless in this context, it's the total operating expenses that matter. The red line is small enough and infrequent enough that the money spent on it doesn't endanger Cap Metro's financial viability. The total operating expenses for a larger and more-frequent rail line, like the 2000 plan, would have been more than what CapMetro is spending on the red line.

Originally Posted by M1EK

4. The only suburb that matters for the next rail election is Leander, because the other ones aren't going to get to vote on it. The # of people who moved into Austin since 2000 is, I bet, equal or more than the # that moved into Leander.

I think you're confused. If it's a CapMetro rail plan, then all the CapMetro suburbs get to vote on it (because it's their money). If it's a city of Austin-only plan, then only Austin gets to vote on it.

In the former case, you take the electorate of the failing vote, and make it even more suburban. In the later case, the electorate (where it passed) has gotten more suburban in the meantime, but it still has a chance. If, I repeat, if the plan is carefully crafted to receive acceptance from the voters.

Originally Posted by M1EK

The number of riders who live in Austin or Leander compared to those who live outside the taxing area (i.e. Cedar Park, Round Rock, Pflugerville, Liberty Hill, etc.) is small. I never claimed it to be absolutely zero (although sometimes a 140 character limit makes a paraphrase necessary); but I believe the evidence shows that most of the riders are not from Austin itself. I've written about it on the blog and had it confirmed by a rider, most recently here:

http://m1ek.dahmus.org/?p=761

So by an informal raising of hands, in one car, at one station, on one morning, you have drawn a scientific conclusion? And you ignore Howard station on down, which from your _own_ figures are 40% of the boardings (of your one data point).

Originally Posted by M1EK

I've backed up my claims. Time for you to back up yours.

Done.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The real reason they're trying desperately to avoid talking about Lamar/Guadalupe, which every other city would do first, is because of Rapid Bus - it creates huge political and financial problems for urban rail. Politically, the city would have to have the balls to do what it did in 2006 - stand up to Capital Metro and argue that Rapid Bus really isn't worth a hill of beans (and no, it isn't). Financially, now that the city failed to stop Rapid Bus the second time around (circa 2009ish), the Feds are in on 80% of the (small) bill and would logically resist requests for funding for urban rail in the same corridor.

>75% of the rapid bus lines are outside of the corridor in question. And by the time any rail system could be implemented, it would have been running for almost a decade. And a significant percentage of the federal money went towards rolling stock that could be shifted as necessary to eliminate any possible redundancy with urban rail. The Fed would rightly see that they got their money's worth. It's a non-issue.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...key-mop/nWK8C/

Posted: 12:00 a.m. Sunday, Feb. 10, 2013
Wear: City frosty about toll authority’s plan for key MoPac exit

By Ben Wear

I’m about to tell you about something that isn’t going to happen.
Unless it does.

You may have heard that our local toll agency, the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, later this year will begin a $200 million project to add an express toll lane to each side of MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) from just north of Lady Bird Lake to Parmer Lane in North Austin.

The lanes will have fluctuating toll rates, the point being to keep the cost high enough to modulate the traffic and keep it moving. The mobility authority naturally would want the lanes to get people into and out of downtown Austin as seamlessly as possible.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...key-mop/nWK8C/

The city is "frosty" because of NIMBYs as usual. Let the freeway engineering experts build the road as they see fit.