AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by nixcity

I think it's mostly about the med school, which by the year 2022 or so will really be good for mass transit but no way to Highland. Can someone please put up a split picture comparing density of the low rise buildings in their plan for ACC next to WHAT IS ALREADY THERE on L/G.

I wish it was possible to convince people that future development in the Airport Blvd/Highland area is not just about ACC. The entire magnificently located area is ripe for redevelopment, and real estate interests and some city leaders are very aware of the potential of the area. Look at Google aerial maps and see for yourself exactly how much land there is up there that can be easily redeveloped. It is adjacent to the busiest highway junctions in the area. At least three hundred thousand vehicles a day go through the area on 35, 183, or other nearby roadways.

[M1EK]

1. The plans for Highland are modest. A few 3 or 4 story Texas donuts in the parking lot of Highland Mall. Being adjacent to highways in Texas is a development DISadvantage, if you want to go urban - look at how difficult it would be to, let's say, walk from the new Highland Mall to the neighborhoods to the west or the east thanks to the Red Line and I-35.

2. There's no guarantee where the people who move there will work! On Guadalupe/Lamar, you already know how many potential transit users you have (based on current bus ridership plus some interviews of current car commuters). As with Mueller, simply connecting this development to downtown does not mean the residents won't work on 183 or 360 instead.

3. Transit's ability to shape development in greenfields or brownfields is highly exaggerated. As Christof Spieler said a long time ago, density wants to be with other density, not in the middle of nowhere.

http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodal...e-future-line/

We can build it, as some have suggested, in places where people don’t want to live right now in hopes that people will want to live there. Or we can build it where people already are, and where more people are coming, to take some of that load. We’ve learned from Main that people will ride rail if it goes where they want to go. We’ve also learned that dense development is most likely to occur in places that are already dense. Rail isn’t causing density — the density is coming anyway. Rail, done right, is a way to deal with the traffic that density brings.

But what does he know, right? Houston only has the best light rail start in decades, a successful expansion program, and the guy who wrote that quote got put on the METRO board for his trouble.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The city and Capital Metro don't want to look bad re: Rapid Bus; Leffingwell has no stomach for fighting about lane reductions; the city and others want to make the Medical Center and Highland developments look more impressive; etc. Has absolutely nothing to do with real mobility problems, though, and you should most definitely vote the entire thing down unless some radical changes are made.

Got it. Thanks. Yeah, I have no plan to vote for it in its current form.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Got it. Thanks. Yeah, I have no plan to vote for it in its current form.

What is your expected outcome from voting it down then?

I'm asking this as a genuine question. I know people who voted against light rail in 2000 over relatively minor quibbles. Now, 14 years later we get to vote on a much smaller proposal with a worse route. They now greatly regret their original vote.

I know M1EK thinks this route is so bad it's worse than not having rail and worth waiting the decade or more before we get to try again. Is that your position as well?

If not, what is voting this down going to accomplish?

Again, just asking.

(I'll be voting yes with reservations, in the interest of full disclosure.)

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by tildahat

What is your expected outcome from voting it down then?

I'm asking this as a genuine question. I know people who voted against light rail in 2000 over relatively minor quibbles. Now, 14 years later we get to vote on a much smaller proposal with a worse route. They now greatly regret their original vote.

I know M1EK thinks this route is so bad it's worse than not having rail and worth waiting the decade or more before we get to try again. Is that your position as well?

If not, what is voting this down going to accomplish?

Again, just asking.

(I'll be voting yes with reservations, in the interest of full disclosure.)

This is a misrepresentation of the position of the GL people -- not surprising given your personal affiliation with that tool Rich Mackinnon.

If we build another rail line with low ridership, we will not be able to afford a third line anywhere. The operating subsidies will kill some more bus routes like the Red Line did; and the capital costs will kill our bond capacity. The only way we get to build more rail lines is if this one reduces operating subsidies over bus service - they can't be high or even medium-high; they need to be as low or lower than existing bus subsidies.

And second: if the line somehow ends up with respectable ridership, it will kill rail on Guadalupe/Lamar for essentially ever. The FTA will not fund two lines that close together; and the local political battle over what would appear to be a third line in north-central Austin would be completely impossible.

So if you care about rail anywhere, you have to believe this line will be a strong success in order to vote for it. And if you care about rail on Guadalupe and Lamar at all, you need to vote against Highland even if you think it might actually get 20,000 boardings/day like Project Connect claims.

Finally, as for the timeline to get another run - we passed a rail plan here in 2004 (that I hate) after one was rejected in 2000. I would be thrilled if we got a chance to vote on GL in 2018 after rejecting this piece of shit in 2014. Don't claim we'll never get another shot at it, and don't pull the "bbbut commuter rail" garbage - most of the voters in 2004 had no idea it wasn't light rail. It doesn't have to be more than a decade; but it will be more than a decade if you pass this disaster.

You should instead point to the people who voted yes in 2004. They were assured they'd get light rail down Guadalupe/Lamar right after (this was why Capital Metro's board chairman told central Austinites they should vote for it!). Bad line, badly implemented, and we're barely getting another shot in 2014 - but only for a bad rail line rather than a good one, and only because the capital outlays were low, and the city's still going to have to pay the capital cost for the next line because the previous one practically bankrupted Capital Metro from both a capital and operating perspective (it didn't help that Cap Metro lied about seeking federal funding).

[brando]

The city NEEDS to get out of this mindset that every option has to solve every problem. It's good to make progress and serve sections of the city and keep expanding that. It's way easier to expand lines then keep going until you find an option that you think is perfect. A line from Riverside, Downtown to UT will make a world of difference. Riverside has become the hotspot for redevelopment with the need for apartments as well as the zoning changes in the area.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by tildahat

What is your expected outcome from voting it down then?

I'm asking this as a genuine question. I know people who voted against light rail in 2000 over relatively minor quibbles. Now, 14 years later we get to vote on a much smaller proposal with a worse route. They now greatly regret their original vote.

I know M1EK thinks this route is so bad it's worse than not having rail and worth waiting the decade or more before we get to try again. Is that your position as well?

If not, what is voting this down going to accomplish?

Again, just asking.

(I'll be voting yes with reservations, in the interest of full disclosure.)

I'll answer….but I am reluctant considering the nature of many members of this board who are attack driven.

I voted for 2004. It served the obvoius needs of a growing city
I want better transportation around town.
We were on a good track. I liked where the project was heading.
The city was already "down the road" in terms of neighborhood discussions about placement.
( NOTE: I was not totally happy with some of those outcomes and how they would affect me personally and my property, however, I thought it was still a good idea)
Why did they change their mind?
I have seen no honest discussion by the city on this.
This line does not serve the population that is already in place to make it work.
This line "has the appearance" ( and please people, there is no arguing that…it is truly my own point of view) Of ONLY serving the needs of UT.
Connect UT to its med school and student populations… Yes, students are a large part of Austin… but this needs to serve Austin, not just UT.
It does not connect down town to the Airport. That is major for me. Not only
in terms of my personal neeeds, but making the city user friendly.
I do not see folks funding this price tag and a tunnel.
We have places to cross the river that would work with the Lavaca/Gualadupe route.

I do not see voting for rail just to have rail with it does not serve our needs now…… and the needs we have now will have to wait even further down the line.
This proposal is a mistake, I don't think it will pass, and we've just wasted more time.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by brando

The city NEEDS to get out of this mindset that every option has to solve every problem. It's good to make progress and serve sections of the city and keep expanding that. It's way easier to expand lines then keep going until you find an option that you think is perfect. A line from Riverside, Downtown to UT will make a world of difference. Riverside has become the hotspot for redevelopment with the need for apartments as well as the zoning changes in the area.

This is fine as long as you take path dependence into account. For instance, passing the Red Line in 2004 meant we could not build the 2000 light rail line (you can't "grow" the Red Line into light rail).

E Riverside, as long as it points towards Guadalupe/Lamar and not the execrable disaster of Highland, would be a fine starter that could be built off later. It's not a spine, but at least it feeds into the natural spine, instead of ruining it the way Highland would.

Also see: Keep It Simple, Stupid. I expect the subsidy on E Riverside rail would be close enough to bus that it wouldn't hurt us in the long run. Highland, no way.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The operating subsidies will kill some more bus routes like the Red Line did;

It didn't. Cap Metro has told you this claim is false, and your own posting with this claim completely ignored that cost overruns on _bus_ service were 10x rail overruns.

Originally Posted by M1EK

The FTA will not fund two lines that close together;

Many successful transit systems have lines in proximity to each other. The D.C. Metro Red and Green lines run fairly parallel to each other for about 5 miles.

Originally Posted by M1EK

Finally, as for the timeline to get another run - we passed a rail plan here in 2004 (that I hate) after one was rejected in 2000. I would be thrilled if we got a chance to vote on GL in 2018 after rejecting this piece of shit in 2014. Don't claim we'll never get another shot at it, and don't pull the "bbbut commuter rail" garbage - most of the voters in 2004 had no idea it wasn't light rail. It doesn't have to be more than a decade; but it will be more than a decade if you pass this disaster.

You don't think that just maybe it takes longer to prepare a billion dollar proposal (including land acquisition, lane removals, river crossings, etc.) than it does to prepare a proposal for a cheap system over an existing line?

Originally Posted by M1EK

They were assured they'd get light rail down Guadalupe/Lamar right after (this was why Capital Metro's board chairman told central Austinites they should vote for it!).

Link?

Originally Posted by M1EK

Bad line, badly implemented,

And by badly implemented, you mean running at max capacity.

Originally Posted by M1EK

and the city's still going to have to pay the capital cost for the next line because the previous one practically bankrupted Capital Metro from both a capital and operating perspective

It wasn't the red line that bankrupted CapMetro. It was

1. Having to give back all its reserves (more than it ever spent on the red line).

2. The previous capMetro administration was fairly fiscally incompetent (that's why they were pushed out).

The 2000 plan assumed sales tax revenues would continue increasing, because they increased 15% annually from 95-99. What, tech bubble?
http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304_2915.html

It also assumed CapMetro would easily bring it's 12% FRR up to 20%. What is it today, 12%.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It didn't. Cap Metro has told you this claim is false, and your own posting with this claim completely ignored that cost overruns on _bus_ service were 10x rail overruns.

Capital Metro claimed it was false; I proved it was true. You need to find a better way to spend your time than carrying water for those guys from behind the cloak of anonymity.

Whole Shakers of Salt, from 2010

So what we have now is 5-7 fewer buses and about 3,000 to 13,000 fewer hours of service. The answer to the question is: NO, service overall is NOT going up as a result of this change. The resources from the #9 are NOT being invested in service elsewhere in the system.

That's one example; the other one is the collapsing of the two very popular express buses into one less useful route 6 months after the Red Line opened.

I'm not going to waste time with the rest of your garbage until you come clean as to who you are and why you do this all over the internet. For the rest of you, there are a lot of astroturfers out there trying to make it look like transit activists actually support the execrable Project Connect plan. You deserve better than that.

Your pal,
M1EK

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Capital Metro claimed it was false; I proved it was true.

No, you didn't. Not if you actually do the math. Any overruns on the rail operating cost were _dwarfed_ by cost overruns on the other buses (by like 10x).
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...43#post6542443

Originally Posted by M1EK

You need to find a better way to spend your time than carrying water for those guys from behind the cloak of anonymity.

In other words, attack the messenger.

Originally Posted by M1EK

I'm not going to waste time with the rest of your garbage until you come clean as to who you are and why you do this all over the internet.

Because I don't like to see people making provably false claims all over the internet.

Originally Posted by M1EK

For the rest of you, there are a lot of astroturfers out there trying to make it look like transit activists actually support the execrable Project Connect plan.

Again, attacking the messenger.
I'm not an astroturfer. I have no connection (financial or otherwise) with CapMetro. I would not financially benefit one way or another on a G/L vs. Highland Route, as my house isn't near either route (unlike some other people).

[jtown,man]

So from what I am reading here, no rail for Austin.

If some folks here on SSP are against the idea, and will, in fact, vote against it, how the hell are we expecting the average person who drives everywhere and has little interests in urban/transportation issues to vote yes on rail?

If we vote against this plan, how long will it be until there is even another one proposed?


If we build this rail line, plus decrease(as they are now) headways and other improvements on the Red line, I think that is a fair start.

In 6 years Austin will have two BRT lines, 1 commuter line, and 1 light rail line. 6 years ago, Austin had NOTHING.

11 years=2 rail lines/ 2 BRT lines It's not perfect, but it ain't bad either. If Austin can have 4 BRT lines and 4 rail lines by 2030, I think that would be about right.

[East7thStreet]

The thing that sticks out the most to me with this urban rail proposal is the 220 million dollar tunnel from Hancock Center to 47th/Airport Blvd. WTF? How about we bury a portion of rail line somewhere downtown or on Guadalupe in West Campus....with that kind of money.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

So from what I am reading here, no rail for Austin.

If some folks here on SSP are against the idea, and will, in fact, vote against it, how the hell are we expecting the average person who drives everywhere and has little interests in urban/transportation issues to vote yes on rail?

Yep, that's pretty much it. Unless the planners all of the sudden stop treating the voters of Austin like complete idiots, and actually propose the route that EVERYONE knows is where rail belongs. But that's going to involve a whole lot of admitting they were wrong, and disregarding tons of supporting arguments and materials that they made up to make a stupid route seem like the right one. And I think there is very little chance they would do that, and there isn't much time.

If we vote against this plan, how long will it be until there is even another one proposed?

I expect we'll have flying cars first.

[East7thStreet]

Yeah....i'm another one that probably won't vote for this proposal....and I take the Crestview station rail line a few times a week. A Lamar/Guadalupe line is so obviously needed that it blows my mind they want to put this latest proposal through such low density areas.

[austlar1]

Never mind

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by M1EK

This is a misrepresentation of the position of the GL people -- not surprising given your personal affiliation with that tool Rich Mackinnon.

Not sure why you feel the need to go ad hominem as a first resort, it makes people less inclined to read and listen to the substance of your response, not more. We agree much more than we disagree on urbanism and transit issues.

For the record, I was not trying to misrepresent anyone, certainly not 'the GL people' however that's defined. I did mention the (admittedly anecdotal) experience of a few people after the 2000 election, and attempted to characterize your position. Perhaps that's what set you off.

In any case, it was a genuine effort to summarize your position, though in retrospect, I probably should have said something like "My understanding of M1EK's position is ____________. He can correct me if I'm wrong."

My genuine intent was to find out the game theory of rail supporters planning on voting against this proposal. If they can convince me that doing so will lead to a significantly better proposal which can win an election in a few years, I'll vote against Highland too. So far, no one has done that, but I'll have to wait until later to get to the substance of it.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by East7thStreet

The thing that sticks out the most to me with this urban rail proposal is the 220 million dollar tunnel from Hancock Center to 47th/Airport Blvd. WTF? How about we bury a portion of rail line somewhere downtown or on Guadalupe in West Campus....with that kind of money.

FTA (light rail) and FRA (commuter rail) regulated trains can't share the same tracks, even at crossings, with the other without temporal separation. I assume both light rail and commuter rail trains will be running at the same time, so temporal separation is impossible where the two types of trains cross, that some sort of grade separation is needed. The Red Line had to fly over the UP freight tracks for a similar reason.

The proposed routing of the urban rail crosses the commuter rail near Hancock Center, that's why the tunnel is proposed to happen there, although I'm wondering why another flyover, which should be significantly cheaper, isn't proposed instead. I suppose the proximity of an elevated freeway might come into play. But I have no problem with why a grade separation is placed there.

When you spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a required grade separation, you have less to spend elsewhere in the project. How much you spend, and how much money the local agency puts up, does come into play when seeking federal funds. There's just too much competition for those more frequently requested source of federal funds., the more competitive bang for the buck projects usually win the contest for federal funds.

I know what I'm going to suggest now will not be popular, but I think they should move the routing of the urban rail train off Red River and build it parallel to the freeway on the western edge of its right-of-way just a few city blocks to the east. It would avoid having to build the very expensive tunnel. It's too soon to make decisions like this, that's the point of following federal environmental impact studies to find the best possible route during the design process. Too often local advocates try to fit a round peg into a square hole, and cost skyrocket because their vision was wrong.

Additionally, a similar grade separation would be required where Guadalupe crosses the Red line, a decision on whether a flyover or tunnel would have to be made there as well. I would choose the cheaper flyover, but the neighborhood might choose differently.

Taking an earlier point further, are urban rail planners planning a system to move more passengers more efficiently or to facilitate more developers? Building an urban rail line down city streets provides access to more developers, building an urban rail line down freeways and freight corridors might make the rail line more efficient. I've seen both done, so the question to be answered is which is right for Austin?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

I know what I'm going to suggest now will not be popular, but I think they should move the routing of the urban rail train off Red River and build it parallel to the freeway on the western edge of its right-of-way just a few city blocks to the east.

This was an option considered, and even showed up on the earlier maps, but my understanding is that TxDOT already shot this down.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...all-to-/ndXpM/

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by tildahat

Not sure why you feel the need to go ad hominem as a first resort, it makes people less inclined to read and listen to the substance of your response, not more. We agree much more than we disagree on urbanism and transit issues.

For the record, I was not trying to misrepresent anyone, certainly not 'the GL people' however that's defined. I did mention the (admittedly anecdotal) experience of a few people after the 2000 election, and attempted to characterize your position. Perhaps that's what set you off.

In any case, it was a genuine effort to summarize your position, though in retrospect, I probably should have said something like "My understanding of M1EK's position is ____________. He can correct me if I'm wrong."
.

"I think Chris wants to vote for Highland rail because he wants to set puppies on fire. He can correct me if I'm wrong."

You knew the GL people don't think it will take 10 or 20 years to get it back to the polls if this one fails, yet you made your initial claim anyways.

If you want to just support the political machine, do so; but I'm in no mood any more to pretend not to notice. We agree on nothing if you support Highland rail, because if we build Highland rail, everything else falls apart.