AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Seems like they hit their projection right on the dot, then. In the first month, daily ridership averaged just over 2000 /day.

That's about the most dishonest thing I've ever seen you post.

The first month they were still giving free rides and catering to looky-loos. Once it settled down, they were at 800 boardings/day.

Folks, I don't know how much more clear it can get than this.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Trying to prove something affirmatively and trying to prove something does not exist are two completely different propositions. The former is routinely used in many disciplines, whereas the latter is almost exclusively used in conspiracy theory circles, which I've become convinced you travel in.

As a counterpoint: would you mind proving that you aren't paid by some interest that is always opposed to CapMetro?

When all somebody does is nitpick every argument Project Connect critics make, even when presented with far more details than Project Connect or Capital Metro ever provides; always doing so in the service of defending Capital Metro / Project Connect; when they hold Capital Metro's critics to a standard far above that to which they hold Capital Metro despite the fact that the critics are unpaid volunteer hobbyists with day jobs,

it's dishonest to pretend to just be doing so in the interest of truth.

I'm not surprised to see this personal attack out of the blue from you after you failed to participate in the argument on its actual points even at the level Novacek does, but I am surprised to see it stand.

[Mikey711MN]

To interrupt the debate already in progress...

http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/n...ail-expansion/

Highlights include $28M for four new train sets and $22M for a permanent station in Downtown (with 2 platforms & 3 tracks).

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

To interrupt the debate already in progress...

http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/n...ail-expansion/

Highlights include $28M for four new train sets and $22M for a permanent station in Downtown (with 2 platforms & 3 tracks).

Wish they would extend the line across downtown with stop at Congress and some point west.

[TexasCreed]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

To interrupt the debate already in progress...

http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/n...ail-expansion/

Highlights include $28M for four new train sets and $22M for a permanent station in Downtown (with 2 platforms & 3 tracks).

So the double tracking and no station expansions mean we will see smaller headways rather than extended trains? In the long run this all is probably good news as higher capacity combined with ridership under the same system probably means less cost per passenger carried.


Meanwhile the city council accepted in a 7 - 0 vote to accept the general mobility plan set forth. Either project connect had all of the city council in their pocket or not a single council member decided that the critics arguments had enough merit. I'll let you all decide on that one. They will later decide whether or not to send it to ballot for funding.

http://www.kvue.com/story/news/local...rail/11428925/

[hookem]

Originally Posted by TexasCreed

Meanwhile the city council accepted in a 7 - 0 vote to accept the general mobility plan set forth. Either project connect had all of the city council in their pocket or not a single council member decided that the critics arguments had enough merit. I'll let you all decide on that one. They will later decide whether or not to send it to ballot for funding.

Or they were told it's too late to make any substantial changes to fix it, so there was no point trying.

I'm not a fan of the 10-1 system... but I'll bet they would come up with a route that would serve more people or address an existing major corridor, at least. That is, if they would even go for the idea of urban rail.

[austlar1]

Here is a question unrelated to any rail proposals or other transit issues. Does anybody know whether there are limitations on truck traffic on Mopac. I very, very rarely see any large tractor/trailers on Mopac. Sometimes there are smaller trucks that seem to be making local delivery runs. It seems strange that there is so little truck traffic on Mopac since there is so much truck traffic on IH35. I am not complaining, mind you. Just curious.

[TexasCreed]

Originally Posted by hookem

Or they were told it's too late to make any substantial changes to fix it, so there was no point trying.

I'm not a fan of the 10-1 system... but I'll bet they would come up with a route that would serve more people or address an existing major corridor, at least. That is, if they would even go for the idea of urban rail.

That kind of falls under them deciding that the critics didn't have enough merit. I agree though that they had to weigh against waiting probably 2 years at a minimum to bring forth a new rail plan. In comparison of the two lines you may be looking at a 5,000 or so difference in ridership which of course is a lot. If Austin continues to grow at the pace it has the last 20 years then building up density around this line shouldn't be too much of a problem.

The greatest problem might be convincing voters to expand the system if the line has mediocre results. I doubt that it will though since FTA estimated ridership almost always hits below actual marks on purpose. If all the pro Austin public transit people are to be believed then ridership participation should be much beyond lowered expectations.

Hopefully in the mean time Cap metro expands and boosts ridership on the commuter line to 4,000+ over the next 5 years. Which would provide a decent feeder to the light rail.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Here is a question unrelated to any rail proposals or other transit issues. Does anybody know whether there are limitations on truck traffic on Mopac. I very, very rarely see any large tractor/trailers on Mopac. Sometimes there are smaller trucks that seem to be making local delivery runs. It seems strange that there is so little truck traffic on Mopac since there is so much truck traffic on IH35. I am not complaining, mind you. Just curious.

Great question. No limitations that I know of, it's just a connectivity issue that is keeping the kind of truck traffic that you see on IH35 off of Mopac. But that could change soon, check out the info here: http://www.keepmopaclocal.org/

[hookem]

Originally Posted by TexasCreed

That kind of falls under them deciding that the critics didn't have enough merit. I agree though that they had to weigh against waiting probably 2 years at a minimum to bring forth a new rail plan. In comparison of the two lines you may be looking at a 5,000 or so difference in ridership which of course is a lot.

Or it could just be that they just never listened to the critics. Perhaps they had no intention of the local public being involved in choosing the "Locally Preferred Alternative" route. After all, the transit planners know best!

Predicted ridership isn't so important to the public; they are primarily concerned with improvements to mobility for the city as whole, aka themselves. Doesn't always correspond with the transit planners or developer's visions, but if you are asking for money from the voters, the actual benefit to them comes in to play in the end.

Again, not a fan of 10-1, but it looks like it will be up to them to propose the urban rail vision for Austin.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by hookem

Again, not a fan of 10-1, but it looks like it will be up to them to propose the urban rail vision for Austin.

You and me both. I shutter every time I think about it.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

You and me both. I shutter every time I think about it.

I'm reserving judgement. Many other cities with 10:1 structures got to better rail visions than this council. We still don't have a vision. We have one line defined. A vision should define routes and probable stations for all lines. Then the public can see what they are really buying, over what time time frame, and ultimately determine if it will effect them.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...o-be-wi/ngbqQ/

Two-lane stretch of South Congress Avenue to be widened to five lanes
Posted: 6:15 p.m. Tuesday, July 8, 2014

By Ben Wear - American-Statesman Staff

A longtime South Austin traffic bottleneck, the 1.25-mile-long stretch of South Congress Avenue where it has just two lanes, should be eased within the next two years.

The Texas Department of Transportation will spend $6.3 million to widen the road to five lanes between Eberhart Lane, just north of William Cannon Drive, and Foremost Drive. Work should begin by early next year and take about 13 months to complete, TxDOT spokeswoman Kelli Reyna said.

[lzppjb]

About dang time! I've been waiting on this project for awhile. It's been on their docket for years.

I really think eliminating that bottleneck will help speed up the development of Far South Congress.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...o-be-wi/ngbqQ/

Since S. Congress is a highway officially, TX DOT does the street improvement rather than the city. This usually means an extra long construction period. Does anybody remember how it took about two years to make improvements to S. Congress in the vicinity of St. Edwards University back about a decade or more ago?

[jngreenlee]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Does anybody remember how it took about two years to make improvements to S. Congress in the vicinity of St. Edwards University back about a decade or more ago?

I can recall being in a meeting at TXDOT where there was a sidebar about this being a trial of a higher-speed internal process for approval, letting and construction schedule.

The trial run of the rapid process may not have gone so well.

[_Matt]

Project Connect just published an updated vision map with the notable scaling back of urban rail along the L/G corridor.

http://projectconnect.com/sites/defa...ystem-plan.pdf

Old map for reference:
http://projectconnect.com/sites/defa...ConnectMap.pdf

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by _Matt

Project Connect just published an updated vision map with the notable scaling back of urban rail along the L/G corridor.

http://projectconnect.com/sites/defa...ystem-plan.pdf

Old map for reference:
http://projectconnect.com/sites/defa...ConnectMap.pdf

I'm not sure why you think it is a 'scaling back' along the L/G corridor. It is clearly labelled 'potential future extension'. Until the Locally Preferred Alternative was selected, all lines were labelled 'planned'. Now that we have an LPA, every other line is by definition an extension, but all lines, including the LPA are still 'planned' until something is built.

[jngreenlee]

Arguing in this forum looks fun, but I don't have a side yet - Who's more right?

Just kidding guys...I'm firmly in the Gondola camp.

[_Matt]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

I'm not sure why you think it is a 'scaling back' along the L/G corridor. It is clearly labelled 'potential future extension'. Until the Locally Preferred Alternative was selected, all lines were labelled 'planned'. Now that we have an LPA, every other line is by definition an extension, but all lines, including the LPA are still 'planned' until something is built.

I know people are super passionate about this, but we're just talking about lines on a map here.

On the new map there is not a contiguous line along L/G between Seaholm and Crestview.

That route, be it a planned extension or whatever, has been scaled back.