AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by Novacek

As I linked to before, previous funding used in the corridor is not one of the objective criteria for judging FTA applications.

And then there's the fact that Guadalupe is <25% of the corridors where that money was spent.

Come on, look at this objectively. The federal government is not going to say "oh, were were going to give you half a _Billion_ dollars, but because we gave you 5 million to spend on that corridor _ten years_ ago, no deal".

I'm not sure why you refuse to believe this. I was told this directly by the chair of the UTC. Are you really arguing that you understand how the feds work on this better than the city leaders who work with the feds on this stuff?

I mean, I agree that it sucks. We should have put up a reduced starter line version of the 2000 plan in 2003. The city should have rejected metrorapid like they thought about doing.

But in the end I'll vote for whatever crappy line they put up for a vote because otherwise, I may not see urban or light rail in Austin in my lifetime.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Proponents of a Guadalupe/Lamar alignment for urban rail are conflating two separate issues. Urban rail was never intended to replace the 2000 light rail proposal. The line haul characteristics and specific corridors from 2000 are being handled by the red line and rapid bus. Because rapid bus is much less expensive than rail, they are able to expand coverage to North Lamar, Burnet and South Lamar beyond the 2000 proposal.

Urban rail is intended to tie together the other components into a NETWORK, and to hit all of the activity centers that the red line cannot.

Eventually, it could be expanded to cover more of the corridors that rapid bus will cover, but there is not sufficient financial resources in this community (even with federal match) to do that in a first investment.

Maybe so, but the redline/rapid are a horrible replacement for dedicated lane light rail. It's like replacing an Acura with a Yugo.

I don't understand why CapMetro is forsaking the western half of '45. The Lamar Rapid is not expanding south of Ben White, the 338 was cancelled south of Stassney, turning a place with servicable transit into a near transit desert.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Come on, look at this objectively. The federal government is not going to say "oh, were were going to give you half a _Billion_ dollars, but because we gave you 5 million to spend on that corridor _ten years_ ago, no deal".

CAMPO discussion on this very topic. Reason given for not doing Guadalupe/Lamar - federal funding for metrorapid precludes it.

http://austintx.swagit.com/play/04202012-531/#5

Go to the 8:00 minute mark.

So who, objectively speaking, am I to believe, you? Or City of Austin Transportation Director, Rob Spillar?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Come on, look at this objectively. The federal government is not going to say "oh, were were going to give you half a _Billion_ dollars, but because we gave you 5 million to spend on that corridor _ten years_ ago, no deal".

One other thing, Riverside was specifically excluded from metrorapid precisely because of light rail.

It is pretty clear that metrorapid precludes lightrail. The only question is for how long. The more I look at it the more I agree with M1ek and that it will be decades before G/L is considered.

Finally i will just add that avoiding putting transit on the most congest corridor in town is nonsensical. That is precisely where you put your high capacity transit lines. It should be the highest priority, not way down on the list.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Komeht

One other thing, Riverside was specifically excluded from metrorapid precisely because of light rail.

It is pretty clear that metrorapid precludes lightrail. The only question is for how long. The more I look at it the more I agree with M1ek and that it will be decades before G/L is considered.

Finally i will just add that avoiding putting transit on the most congest corridor in town is nonsensical. That is precisely where you put your high capacity transit lines. It should be the highest priority, not way down on the list.

You're looking at it all wrong. G/L may be the most congestion corridor, but is it the busiest corridor? You should put transit in your busiest corridor, not the most congested. I suggest I-35 and MoPac freeways are far busier than G/L.

The reason why G/L is more congested is the very reason why it makes a poor choice for at grade transit - its narrow width. To do rail on G/L right, it needs to be grade separated in "The Drag".

Apparently, Austin doesn't have the money to do that now, nor in the near future. There are other demands for transportation money in the Austin area. The Lone Star Rail between San Antonio and Austin has no local funds, the new UP bypass freight line needed for Lone Star Rail has no local funds, freeways are getting toll lanes because there are no local funds, etc. CapMetro burns through its yearly sales tax revenues subsidizing bus services, and consumed all of its reserves building CapMetroRail.

Where's the money coming from to build the proposed urban rail lines? Will its referendum pass? How will its operations and maintenance be funded? Which city account in the city budget will get raided?

What makes MetroRapid so entrancing to CapMetro is that it costs so little to implement and operate. No referendum needed. When building new rail lines becomes just as easy to accomplish in every facet, you'll see CapMetro seeking to build new rail lines. Until then, the best you should hope for is extending CapMetroRail further north or to the east, where there are already tracks in place.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by electricron

You're looking at it all wrong. G/L may be the most congestion corridor, but is it the busiest corridor? You should put transit in your busiest corridor, not the most congested. I suggest I-35 and MoPac freeways are far busier than G/L.

The reason why G/L is more congested is the very reason why it makes a poor choice for at grade transit - its narrow width. To do rail on G/L right, it needs to be grade separated in "The Drag".

Apparently, Austin doesn't have the money to do that now, nor in the near future. There are other demands for transportation money in the Austin area. The Lone Star Rail between San Antonio and Austin has no local funds, the new UP bypass freight line needed for Lone Star Rail has no local funds, freeways are getting toll lanes because there are no local funds, etc. CapMetro burns through its yearly sales tax revenues subsidizing bus services, and consumed all of its reserves building CapMetroRail.

Where's the money coming from to build the proposed urban rail lines? Will its referendum pass? How will its operations and maintenance be funded? Which city account in the city budget will get raided?

What makes MetroRapid so entrancing to CapMetro is that it costs so little to implement and operate. No referendum needed. When building new rail lines becomes just as easy to accomplish in every facet, you'll see CapMetro seeking to build new rail lines. Until then, the best you should hope for is extending CapMetroRail further north or to the east, where there are already tracks in place.

1. "G/L may be the most congestion corridor, but is it the busiest corridor?
You should put transit in your busiest corridor, not the most congested. I suggest I-35 and MoPac freeways are far busier than G/L."

ENORMOUS RED HERRING ALERT - MoPac and IH35 through the center of town are not and have never been considered appropriate light rail corridors for OBVIOUS reasons.

The corridor under consideration is the Mueller route. As compared to it - no question, no contest - Guadalupe wins hands down for "busiest".





2. "The reason why G/L is more congested is the very reason why it makes a poor choice for at grade transit - its narrow width. To do rail on G/L right, it needs to be grade separated in "The Drag"."

I still haven't heard a satisfactory reason why a short stretch of single track, interlaced if necessary with a double track stop, does not work here. In any case, far busier and denser cities have figured this out - we can as well.

3. "Apparently, Austin doesn't have the money to do that now, nor in the near future."

Then why are we discussing light rail at all?

4. "CapMetro burns through its yearly sales tax revenues subsidizing bus services, and consumed all of its reserves building CapMetroRail."

No kidding.

5. "What makes MetroRapid so entrancing to CapMetro is that it costs so little to implement and operate."

Only lousy BRT is cheap. The other kind, the good kind, costs as much or more as light rail and will never attack the kind of ridership that rail attacks.

6. "Until then, the best you should hope for is extending CapMetroRail further north or to the east, where there are already tracks in place."

And I think this pretty much sums up the agenda here - more subsidized transit to the suburbs.

[Austin_Expert]

Originally Posted by tildahat

I don't understand why CapMetro is forsaking the western half of '45. The Lamar Rapid is not expanding south of Ben White, the 338 was cancelled south of Stassney, turning a place with servicable transit into a near transit desert.

Yet the area is now serviced by a new Route 238, and is still served by both 311 and 333.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your viewpoint.

[nixcity]

Wow, those are great visuals, thanks for sharing. I think the first segment should be down Riverside rather than out to Mueller. Metrorapid has taken L/G off the table for a good long time it seems. So we need to demonstrate healthy ridership so that by the time the feds will be ready to kick in money for L/G we will have the political will and a more knowledgeable populace in order to get a subway through that ~1 mile stretch. Lets start with Riversde from Pleasant Valley to downtown up to the capitol. By the time that is done then we can reassess and decide if we should head right to Mueller or left to L/G.

I thought I remember original projections from their "ultralight" rail concept that somehow tied into all of these other plans a few years ago with WAY higher estimates than what was posted here. When did it go from ultralight to urban rail?

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by Komeht

CAMPO discussion on this very topic. Reason given for not doing Guadalupe/Lamar - federal funding for metrorapid precludes it.

http://austintx.swagit.com/play/04202012-531/#5

Go to the 8:00 minute mark.

So who, objectively speaking, am I to believe, you? Or City of Austin Transportation Director, Rob Spillar?

No where in that presentation does he say MetroRapid PRECLUDES federal funding for urban rail. He says that it would make federal funding for urban rail less competitive. Even if MetroRapid did not receive federal funding, the potential ridership in that corridor for urban rail will be diluted by the presence of MetroRapid. If a rider gets on MetroRapid somewhere north of the extent of urban rail, they are not likely to transfer to urban rail unless urban rail goes somewhere other than where MetroRapid goes.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

No where in that presentation does he say MetroRapid PRECLUDES federal funding for urban rail. He says that it would make federal funding for urban rail less competitive. Even if MetroRapid did not receive federal funding, the potential ridership in that corridor for urban rail will be diluted by the presence of MetroRapid. If a rider gets on MetroRapid somewhere north of the extent of urban rail, they are not likely to transfer to urban rail unless urban rail goes somewhere other than where MetroRapid goes.

You are playing word games. He doesn't say "precludes" but he all but says it and its quite clear that it means federal funding for metrorapid has in fact precluded G/L being considered for a route.

In response to why G/L is not being considered as first priority Rob Spillar states.

"Now that we have a federally funded project in this corridor it would be very difficult to go back to the federal government and ask them for additional investment in that same corridor. . .a second corridor, a new corridor, a different corridor would stand a much better chance of getting funding."

In response to direct question regarding receipt of funding for metrorapid does that mean we can't ask for federal funds for light rail:

"If we've accepted the federal monies today and go back and say we'd like to make a different or an additional investment tomorrow I would say yes."

"The reason that the priority connections were not the Guadalupe and Lavaca corridor in our previous analysis was because we were about to make an investment which we've just done."

I'm starting to understand M1ek's bile here. . .

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

So who, objectively speaking, am I to believe, you? Or City of Austin Transportation Director, Rob Spillar?

I'm not asking for you to believe me. I'm asking you to believe the Feds themselves, when they say they have an objective system for measuring and ranking grant applications (based on ridership improvements, etc.).

The alternative is that the feds will ignore their published procedure, and deny funding based on previous funding (to another organization) ~10 years in the past, but sometime between years 10 and 30 it magically becomes allowed again.

Now, it may be that those objective measurements may show insufficient improvements between rail and bus. But that's a different issue (and one which would have happened even if the buses had been put in place purely with local funding). And frankly, if a billion dollar rail system _can't_ objectively beat out a few million spent on buses, we probably should be looking at a different location.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I'm not asking for you to believe me. I'm asking you to believe the Feds themselves, when they say they have an objective system for measuring and ranking grant applications (based on ridership improvements, etc.).

The alternative is that the feds will ignore their published procedure, and deny funding based on previous funding (to another organization) ~10 years in the past, but sometime between years 10 and 30 it magically becomes allowed again.

Now, it may be that those objective measurements may show insufficient improvements between rail and bus. But that's a different issue (and one which would have happened even if the buses had been put in place purely with local funding). And frankly, if a billion dollar rail system _can't_ objectively beat out a few million spent on buses, we probably should be looking at a different location.

And yet again, I refer you to the fact that Rob Spillar, when asked why G\L is not being considered, he states because of metrorapid federal funding.

Perhaps you should share the federal guidelines that you know so well with Rob Spillar and highlight the part where it says they don't need to see a return on precious investments and such wont be considered in evaluating a new proposal.

Rob Spillar should definitely have people who like yourself, who know the federal guidelines this well, better than he and his staff does, if he is going to do the job well.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

And yet again, I refer you to the fact that Rob Spillar, when asked why G\L is not being considered, he states because of metrorapid federal funding.

He's saying that because it make a better soundbite than "we don't trust the voters".

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

highlight the part where it says they don't need to see a return on precious investments and such wont be considered in evaluating a new proposal.

Who's saying they wouldn't see a return on investment? They will have seen 7 years of (presumably) increased ridership in the corridor (unless you're M1EK, who thinks there will be no improvement. And that's 7 years with no construction delays, and if you think exclusive running in the Guadalupe corridor will take the same amount of time to construct as non-exclusive running up to Mueller (probably longer, which is why I say ~10). Plus the return on investment in the 75% of metrorapid which _isn't_ in that corridor.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

He's saying that because it make a better soundbite than "we don't trust the voters".

So he is lying? Just to be clear, I'm supposed to believe you an anonymous poster, over Rob Spillar, Director of Transportation of the City of Austin in a transit working group discussion...ok, that's a tough sell.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Who's saying they wouldn't see a return on investment? They will have seen 7 years of (presumably) increased ridership in the corridor (unless you're M1EK, who thinks there will be no improvement. And that's 7 years with no construction delays, and if you think exclusive running in the Guadalupe corridor will take the same amount of time to construct as non-exclusive running up to Mueller (probably longer, which is why I say ~10). Plus the return on investment in the 75% of metrorapid which _isn't_ in that corridor.

Not when they make the determination to invest in the corridor. Which is the point. Metrorapid has precluded G/L for a number of years.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by Austin_Expert

Yet the area is now serviced by a new Route 238, and is still served by both 311 and 333.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your viewpoint.

In fairness to CapMetro, I'm probably overgeneralizing from my disappointment from the 238/338 situation. If you live walking distance to the now combined 338/311, you're still fine. But if you used to use the 338 south of Stassney, the 228 is in no way, shape, or form an adequate replacement. Frequency is reduced to about every 45 minutes, and what used to be a serviceable 1 seat, 35 minute commute (losing only about 10 minutes vs. car) is now in the best-case inbound scenario (which only happens twice a day) a 50 minute one-transfer, but in most cases 54 minutes or more. That's a big difference. Over 50% increase in commute time AND reduced frequency.

But the return trip is much worse, best case scenario 65 minutes, often pushing an hour and 20 minutes or more. That's basically Cap Metro saying, "Hey any of you with even the slightest option of driving - get off our bus!"

There was zero effort to sync up the 238 and 338. None. It should be timed to meet up with the 338 - even if that meant doing it only every other 338. At least it would be useful. I used to take the 338 to work when kid duty didn't preclude it. Now there's no way.

</rant>

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/...xsw-7443.shtml

MetroRail Sees Record Crowds During SXSW

Updated: Thursday, March 14 2013, 04:29 PM CDT

Capital Metro says they've seen record numbers of people using the MetroRail to get to Downtown Austin for South by Southwest.

Capital Metro officials say MetroRail ridership during the interactive and film portion of SXSW from March 8-12 surpassed 2012 by nearly 7,000 boardings, with an approximate total of 20,000 trips to-date.

Ticket sales are also up 37 percent over last year.

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/...xsw-7443.shtml

Not at all surprising! The Lakeline Station P&R lot is overflowing this week in particular.

[Spaceman]

Originally Posted by Komeht

So he is lying? Just to be clear, I'm supposed to believe you an anonymous poster, over Rob Spillar, Director of Transportation of the City of Austin in a transit working group discussion...ok, that's a tough sell.

From what I hear, Spillar, is a very competent director...Practical and smart.