AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Tech House

But that won't stop Novacek from telling us in no uncertain terms exactly what's what!

Werd.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Tech House

But that won't stop Novacek from telling us in no uncertain terms exactly what's what!

It's a bandwidth issue. Once you reach a certain density, rail is _much_ more efficient.

A lane of highway (which would cost way more than $2B, they're talking 4 just for the tri-county area) will never be able to move as many people as a rail line.


Check the CAMPO traffic counts. I-35, which is at or over capacity, runs about 15-20k vehicles /lane /day.

The lone star was estimating in the 10s of thousands just at initial roll out. With the capacity to support 10 times that (on the line, not at the initial stations).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It's a bandwidth issue. Once you reach a certain density, rail is _much_ more efficient.

A lane of highway (which would cost way more than $2B, they're talking 4 just for the tri-county area) will never be able to move as many people as a rail line.


Check the CAMPO traffic counts. I-35, which is at or over capacity, runs about 15-20k vehicles /lane /day.

The lone star was estimating in the 10s of thousands just at initial roll out. With the capacity to support 10 times that (on the line, not at the initial stations).

And that $4B lane addition to I35 is the cheap one. It's the last one that possibly fits in the RoW. Once that capacity it maxed out, adding the one after that costs even more.

[brando]

Has anyone been keeping up with Austin's campaign to win the Smart City Mobility grant? We have no chance against San Fransisco. They are asking for money to truly revolutionize a transportation network that has already maxed out its potential with current day technology. Austin is asking for the money to fix their awful system by 2016 standards. It's a joke.

San Fransisco Proposal: http://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/sa...ransit-utopia/

Austin Proposal: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...-is-mak/nrc6y/

[brando]

Has anyone been keeping up with Austin's campaign to win the Smart City Mobility grant? We have no chance against San Fransisco. They are asking for money to truly revolutionize a transportation network that has already maxed out its potential with current day technology. Austin is asking for the money to fix their awful system by 2016 standards. It's a joke.


-"San Francisco's Smart City Challenge submission is a networked transit utopia"
-By: Andrew Krok
-CNET
-Date Unknown
- http://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/sa...ransit-utopia/
-Now that the US Department of Transportation Smart City Challenge announced its list of seven finalists, each city still in the running has a chance to submit a full, proper pitch for how it would turn a $50 million grant into a city that reflects the future of transportation.

-How Austin officials would spend $40 million to improve city traffic
-Elizabeth Findell
-Austin American Statesman
06/08/16
- http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...-is-mak/nrc6y/
-Austin is “a city on a tipping point” of innovative change, Mayor Steve Adler said in a final pitch Thursday to win the national Smart City challenge.

[LiveattheOasis]

http://keyetv.com/news/local/austin-...-2016-election

Hope folks here will take a look. This makes so much sense.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by LiveattheOasis

http://keyetv.com/news/local/austin-...-2016-election

Hope folks here will take a look. This makes so much sense.

I'd personally vote for G/L light rail.


But this "proposal" is a wild fantasy by complete amateurs who just make up numbers.

A light rail bond vote needs to follow a selection and design process by professionals, not a shoot-first-aim-second effort by a group that _intentionally_ rejects federal funds.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

Has anyone been keeping up with Austin's campaign to win the Smart City Mobility grant? We have no chance against San Fransisco. They are asking for money to truly revolutionize a transportation network that has already maxed out its potential with current day technology. Austin is asking for the money to fix their awful system by 2016 standards. It's a joke.

San Fransisco Proposal: http://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/sa...ransit-utopia/

Austin Proposal: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...-is-mak/nrc6y/

Utopia is right.

Yeah, SF is going to tear out all parking garages and parking spaces. And replace them all with housing. All for $149M.

Right.

[LiveattheOasis]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I'd personally vote for G/L light rail.


But this "proposal" is a wild fantasy by complete amateurs who just make up numbers.

A light rail bond vote needs to follow a selection and design process by professionals, not a shoot-first-aim-second effort by a group that _intentionally_ rejects federal funds.

This isn't wild fantasy, you must be referring to the ridership numbers for the 2014 Project Connect proposal.

It's also taking into account the tens of millions of studies already done on the Guadalupe/Lamar corridor.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by LiveattheOasis

This isn't wild fantasy, you must be referring to the ridership numbers for the 2014 Project Connect proposal.
.

To continue to beat that dead horse, since you brought it up.

The 2014 light rail plan had a projected ridership per mile of approximately 2k /mile.

These yahoos are claiming 7k /mile. Which would make it better than basically any other light rail in America.

While simultaneously claiming no ancillary expenses to improve that ridership. No park and rides. No way to actually connect to the red line. Etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

Originally Posted by LiveattheOasis

It's also taking into account the tens of millions of studies already done on the Guadalupe/Lamar corridor.

You mean the ones that are 20-30 years old at this point, and which don't take into account any of the demographic or regulatory changes in Austin since then?

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It's a bandwidth issue. Once you reach a certain density, rail is _much_ more efficient.

That's the most parsimonious defense of rail that I've ever read, and it makes plenty of sense. But number-crunching doesn't capture cultural and psychological factors. Is it feasible to train sunbelt car addicts to utilize public transit? I'm not asking this to be snide, I see it as a non-trivial obstacle to changing our transportation systems. It kinda kicks ass to ride in your own car, listening to your music, blasting the AC or windows down or both, according to your own personal desires. This seems to be a lot of the appeal of the sunbelt American lifestyle, it's oriented toward private ownership and operation of every aspect of life.

What to do about this? Is it possible that we will change if we're simply offered a better alternative? Using myself as a case study, I haven't been to DT San Antonio in at least 15 years because I freaking HATE the drive, but if there were a speedy rail line that would dump me somewhere near the Riverwalk I'd use it, probably at least once every few years, and possibly every year. But this is regional-sourced tourism so I don't know if it's an important aspect of the situation.

I've never been on the Red line here, and the only reason I'd ever consider using it is just for a one-time experience of seeing what it's like. Other than that, it seems ridiculous because of its bizarre route and inconvenient stop locations. If we do rail, we need to do it right, and it will cost a helluva a lot. Not that this is a newsworthy comment, just saying that I know we have to pony up for a good system IF that's the wisest course of action.

[nixcity]

These yahoos are claiming 7k /mile. Which would make it better than basically any other light rail in America.

While simultaneously claiming no ancillary expenses to improve that ridership. No park and rides. No way to actually connect to the red line. Etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

It is a little unfair to compare a whole system to one specific line. If you compare to say Houston's red line or LA's blue line they are closer to 4,000 boardings per mile. This proposal fairs quite well when compared to Htown's red line and if it captures the 17,000 bus riders than it will already be over 3k per mile. It is also unfair to call the only people advancing light rail in the right corridor "yahoos." Their work has found its way into multiple publications, passed through the UTC and Zoning and Platting and have been involved in numerous mobility talks with the city. It is really sad that is has taken them to do this rather than those that are paid to do this.

You mean the ones that are 20-30 years old at this point, and which don't take into account any of the demographic or regulatory changes in Austin since then?

For a line like this it doesn't matter if the plans are old and the demographic and regulatory changes (UNO for one) has made this line better than it ever was with West Campus being the most dense neighborhoods in the state and with a downtown that has the highest percentage of jobs to total city jobs in the state.
Tech House, I wish we could just put 30-40 miles of subway lines under the city, that sure would be a "helluva a lot."

[nixcity]

However, if LRT is not on the ballot I don't think I can support the mayor's current plan without a few changes. Once again, Keep Austin Wonky has some great suggestions on this.
https://keepaustinwonky.com/2016/06/...or-correction/

[Jdawgboy]

I saw something recently bringing to light as to why we don't have sheltered bus stops? There was a picture of a sheltered bus stop in Chicago as an example that was really nice and was the length of a bus. You know I would use the bus more often if I didn't have to sit in the hot sun or get stuck in a downpour with little or no cover at all. Especially with our summers, we should have better stops. Cap Metro stops are little more than an afterthought.

[nixcity]

Good point, Austin is still really lacking in the basics of bike shelters and well maintained sidewalks and they wonder why we have a traffic problem....

[hookem]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I saw something recently bringing to light as to why we don't have sheltered bus stops? There was a picture of a sheltered bus stop in Chicago as an example that was really nice and was the length of a bus. You know I would use the bus more often if I didn't have to sit in the hot sun or get stuck in a downpour with little or no cover at all. Especially with our summers, we should have better stops. Cap Metro stops are little more than an afterthought.

That would be great, and certainly increase ridership (IMO). But if I had to guess, I'd say the reason they don't build those is that they'd have trouble keeping the homeless from using such shelters. I wonder how they handle that in Chicago?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I saw something recently bringing to light as to why we don't have sheltered bus stops? There was a picture of a sheltered bus stop in Chicago as an example that was really nice and was the length of a bus. You know I would use the bus more often if I didn't have to sit in the hot sun or get stuck in a downpour with little or no cover at all. Especially with our summers, we should have better stops. Cap Metro stops are little more than an afterthought.

If you just mean overhead shade, CapMetro is (slowly) adding them. But they're an expense (not just initial capital, but in upkeep) and they can't afford them for every one of the literally thousands of stops they have.

If you mean the fully enclosed shelters that they have in other climates. It's not nearly as practical. In colder climates, simply enclosing the shelter protects against cold (especially with the addition of body heat). In truly cold areas, they have heated shelters, but that's a pretty simple addition (though still an added expense).
A fully enclosed shelter in Austin becomes a hot-box in the sun. So now you're talking about active cooling. Which is expensive and complicated.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

It is a little unfair to compare a whole system to one specific line. If you compare to say Houston's red line or LA's blue line they are closer to 4,000 boardings per mile.
This proposal fairs quite well when compared to Htown's red line

So because _much larger and denser_ Houston and _much larger and denser LA_ get 4k /mile, 7000 /mile is reasonable in Austin?

Originally Posted by nixcity

and if it captures the 17,000 bus riders than it will already be over 3k per mile.

WHAT 17,000 bus riders?


Combined, the entire 1 and 801 get 12k riders on weekdays.

That's over their entire 25 mile distance.

http://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFile...all-2015v3.pdf

This proposed system is never going to capture, for instance, riders from South Congress to Downtown.

Over that minuscule 5 miles, you're probably talking 5k total in boardings today.
There's a rail-preference, but it's not 6-8X.

Originally Posted by nixcity

It is also unfair to call the only people advancing light rail in the right corridor "yahoos."

They're yahoos. They have no experience in these matters, and it shows with the asinine ideas they propose (like the 2 mile long linear parking lot in their old plan). And it shows with their fake numbers. They've already been caught directly lying about the performance of this plan. The 37,400 riders they "project" is simply the 18-year number stolen from the 2000 light rail plan.

Originally Posted by nixcity

For a line like this it doesn't matter if the plans are old and the demographic and regulatory changes (UNO for one) has made this line better than it ever was

UNO _reduces_ transit ridership potential.

The whole point of UNO was to move the majority of students directly adjacent to campus, so that most of their trips could become biking/walking.

This reduced car trips in the city (the immediate objective) but also has the effect of reducing transit usage by those students.

The whole point of VMU in west campus is similarly to reduce trips.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Tech House

That's the most parsimonious defense of rail that I've ever read, and it makes plenty of sense. But number-crunching doesn't capture cultural and psychological factors. Is it feasible to train sunbelt car addicts to utilize public transit? I'm not asking this to be snide, I see it as a non-trivial obstacle to changing our transportation systems. It kinda kicks ass to ride in your own car, listening to your music, blasting the AC or windows down or both, according to your own personal desires. This seems to be a lot of the appeal of the sunbelt American lifestyle, it's oriented toward private ownership and operation of every aspect of life.

There's definitely some "build it and they will come", but also it's not like no Austinite's use transit even today.

Austin has a 4% transit mode share. That's not great, but that still means thousands of people daily.
And that's with the current system, where transit is (usually) slower than driving.

Originally Posted by Tech House

What to do about this? Is it possible that we will change if we're simply offered a better alternative? Using myself as a case study, I haven't been to DT San Antonio in at least 15 years because I freaking HATE the drive, but if there were a speedy rail line that would dump me somewhere near the Riverwalk I'd use it, probably at least once every few years, and possibly every year. But this is regional-sourced tourism so I don't know if it's an important aspect of the situation.

I think it's a mistake to think of this (formerly) proposed system as being just between Austin and San Antonio. That's actually probably the least important link. It's basically just a bonus you get for free.

More important is Round Rock to downtown Austin, Georgetown to downtown. Hutto to Downtown. Round Rock to the Domain. San Marcos to Downtown. Buda to Downtown. Etc. Etc.


What's the ridership potential for a 30 minute rail trip from Round Rock to downtown in 20 years, when the alternative is a 2 hour drive at rush hour?

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by hookem

That would be great, and certainly increase ridership (IMO). But if I had to guess, I'd say the reason they don't build those is that they'd have trouble keeping the homeless from using such shelters. I wonder how they handle that in Chicago?

Chicago only has bus shelters at strategic or higher traffic stops. There are many many places where buses stop that are just signposts on a street, and you're exposed to the elements.

In re: the homeless -- Chicago is a large enough city that most socio-economic groups are forced to take public transit. It's not thought of as something only the disadvantaged or poor need, which is a bias that's pervasive in places that have grown up around the car. Most everyone needs to take the CTA, because it really is the best way to get around. So you'll see homeless folks both in and out of El stations and bus shelters, but law enforcement there is pretty, um, aggressive? And people get moved on more than we're used to here in Austin.