AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Jdawgboy]

I'd use it for sure if they built it. The thing I like about that idea is that you can get on one at just about any time rather than waiting around 20 min for a bus. Just wait a min for the next one to arrive on the platform and get on and enjoy the view.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by paul78701

(Not that they haven't been poo-pooing already mind you.)

I poo poo it because Ficklin has been massively lying to people ever since he started.

There's the statesman article that claims 1/5 of Austin lives within a 10 minute walk of south First (they don't).

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...-traffi/nrhrg/

A number which he has apparently now inflated to 2.7 Million people living next to South First

https://twitter.com/cubbie9000/statu...53442023665664


He also claims 1.8M ride the number 10 bus on South First (a lie).


There's also his total lack of understanding of basic physics, with the claim that stations will be placed on the sidewalks, accessible with ramps.

With the required shallow slope of pedestrian ramps, on the narrow South 1st sidewalks, it would completely cut off pedestrian access to all the South 1st businesses. Not to mention require anyone simply wanting to walk down south first (without paying) to continually walk up and down (every half mile) greatly increasing their trip length and difficulty.


He also never states why South 1st, which isn't one of the main corridors of the city, is selected. No South 1st bus stop is even in CapMetro's top 10.
It's only virtue, as far as I can see, is that his office (Argodesign) is located there, and he wants a private ride.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I'd use it for sure if they built it. The thing I like about that idea is that you can get on one at just about any time rather than waiting around 20 min for a bus.

The solution to that is to run buses more frequently than 20 minutes.


You won't be able to "get on one any time", because people will be in the line ahead of you. Only instead of just waiting in one spot, like a bus/station bench, you'll be waiting in a continually moving forward line (personally I find that more frustrating, especially with the drama of line skippers, people holding spots, etc.)


And if there aren't usually people in line ahead of you, that means no one is riding, in which case what's the use of the wire?

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Just wait a min for the next one to arrive on the platform and get on and enjoy the view.

And then half a mile later, you get to the next station. And you have to wait. And then you go again, and then you get to the next station, and then you wait.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

and enjoy the view.

Also, what view?
Except for crossing the river, he's basically claiming you're moving at 2nd story level the whole time. You're not even above most of the tree level.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You won't be able to "get on one any time", because people will be in the line ahead of you. Only instead of just waiting in one spot, like a bus/station bench, you'll be waiting in a continually moving forward line (personally I find that more frustrating, especially with the drama of line skippers, people holding spots, etc.)

And if there aren't usually people in line ahead of you, that means no one is riding, in which case what's the use of the wire?

And then half a mile later, you get to the next station. And you have to wait. And then you go again, and then you get to the next station, and then you wait.

These are the three biggest factors pointing to why this will never happen.

With the first bolded segment, long wait times are inherent in small passenger vehicles when accompanied by high demand. I would assume that tends to correlate highly (and perhaps causally) with lowered consumer satisfaction with that form of transit. Ergo, nobody will ever be as satisfied with this as they would with busses, even if busses would take, on average, longer, because they have to wait in line for a seat. With busses, you wait for the bus, and everyone gets on at the same time. Same with rail, and uber, and your car (because you have to assess how many people can come with you ahead of time, thus limiting exposure to line creation -- e.g. it's a censored process).

With the second bolded segment, I think there'd be lines in some places, but not in others. But your point hits on something very truthful: if there aren't lines with this type of technology, there's a fundamental problem.

This last one is a unique problem from the first bolded segment, but keep in mind that each of these problems would tend to exacerbate the wait times of the other because they will reduce the number of empty unit-seats within the queue. ... unless there are bypasses built at stations to allow full units to completely bypass the station and its current queue of units. However, that comes with another drawback that someone mentioned earlier w/r/t to local v. non-local rail service on the same line: people do not like when trains are able to bypass stations. It would be an open question, though, if people would in this different setting be as upset as in the train example?

Originally Posted by Novacek

Also, what view?
Except for crossing the river, he's basically claiming you're moving at 2nd story level the whole time. You're not even above most of the tree level.

The view of peoples' backyards?

I think what people would be upset about is onlookers staring into their backyards from 2 stories up on the road right over there. Not only is S. 1st not the street for this because it isn't highly trafficked and is too narrow, it is also too residentially oriented. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that it'd never work as an idea, just not on this street or in these circumstances.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I poo poo it because Ficklin has been massively lying to people ever since he started.

There's the statesman article that claims 1/5 of Austin lives within a 10 minute walk of south First (they don't).

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...-traffi/nrhrg/

A number which he has apparently now inflated to 2.7 Million people living next to South First

https://twitter.com/cubbie9000/statu...53442023665664


He also claims 1.8M ride the number 10 bus on South First (a lie).


There's also his total lack of understanding of basic physics, with the claim that stations will be placed on the sidewalks, accessible with ramps.

With the required shallow slope of pedestrian ramps, on the narrow South 1st sidewalks, it would completely cut off pedestrian access to all the South 1st businesses. Not to mention require anyone simply wanting to walk down south first (without paying) to continually walk up and down (every half mile) greatly increasing their trip length and difficulty.


He also never states why South 1st, which isn't one of the main corridors of the city, is selected. No South 1st bus stop is even in CapMetro's top 10.
It's only virtue, as far as I can see, is that his office (Argodesign) is located there, and he wants a private ride.

All of this is the purpose of a viability/feasibility study. At the moment, all of this is really just a concept. There's no way the first pass at his or any plan would be perfect. These details can/must be flushed out. After a study or two, the route could be modified and maximized for more efficient ridership if need be. Sidewalk upgrades and how/where the stations are accessed can be evaluated and modified. Whether or not there would be an issue with congestion at the stations and people standing in line can be better detailed and addressed. Etc.

We need a solution...like yesterday. It *sounds* like gondolas can be put in place faster, with less disruption, and at less cost than any other mass transit system. Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't. But we won't know for sure until these studies are done.

Right now, nobody can say with complete certainty that any of the issues you bring up can or cannot be worked out. If you want to poo-poo his specific plan, fine, I get it. But poo-pooing an idea that hasn't been properly vetted, evaluated, studied really isn't fair.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Also, what view?
Except for crossing the river, he's basically claiming you're moving at 2nd story level the whole time. You're not even above most of the tree level.

In a (albeit distant) way, this whole thing reminds me of riding the 'L' train above the streets of Chicago. (Except for the fact that those damn things are noisy. This would certainly be much quieter.) Not having to share the streets like buses or the proposed light rail solutions is definitely a plus!

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by paul78701

and at less cost than any other mass transit system.

Except it's not. Even Ficklin admits "up to $600M" (certainly more, since it's 18 times larger than Oregon's system that cost $57M in 2006).
That was Austin's share of the 2014 rail plan.

And that's for a system that even with Ficklin's ludicrous, fake ridership numbers carries significantly fewer people.

And with a much higher operating cost (again, Oregon's system is 1.7M a year, and this is 18 times the size).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Aerial_Tram

Originally Posted by paul78701

Right now, nobody can say with complete certainty that any of the issues you bring up can or cannot be worked out. If you want to poo-poo his specific plan, fine, I get it. But poo-pooing an idea that hasn't been properly vetted, evaluated, studied really isn't fair.

Using that logic, we should spend $15,000 on studying the effects of wishing really hard. And $15000 on a proposal to give everyone a Segway, and $15,000 ....

As a first order approximation, you can look at whether the plan is in conflict with basic physics and geometry. And you can examine if the main proponent is consistently lying to people.

And the answer is yes and YES.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by paul78701

In a (albeit distant) way, this whole thing reminds me of riding the 'L' train above the streets of Chicago. (Except for the fact that those damn things are noisy. This would certainly be much quieter.) Not having to share the streets like buses or the proposed light rail solutions is definitely a plus!

If someone was proposing elevated rail, I'd be much more on board. It's expensive, but it's a proven, working solution.


This is a just a crackpot idea from someone with no experience in transportation planning, and a proven misunderstanding of basic math.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I think there'd be lines in some places, but not in others.

And certain times, but not others.

Which is another huge problem with the proposal.

The capacity when ACL festival lets out is the same as the capacity at 5 AM on a summer Sunday.

Since the claim is the system gets large chunks of its ridership from tourists and festival goers, that's a problem.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

And certain times, but not others.

Which is another huge problem with the proposal.

The capacity when ACL festival lets out is the same as the capacity at 5 AM on a summer Sunday.

Since the claim is the system gets large chunks of its ridership from tourists and festival goers, that's a problem.

Right? And exactly why is this route the optimum one for tourists? This goes nowhere tourists go, really -- except for downtown and maybe a stop or two south of downtown -- it connects tourists, on major tourist events (which, of course, are the major driver of our estimated tourist count), at a slower rate than them simply walking across the bridge to Zilker from their hotel in downtown (which is the only concentration of hotels along this route).

[resansom]

According to this article, Cable Propelled Transit (CPT) offers the following advantages over bus (BRT) and light rail (LRT) alternatives:

• It is relatively inexpensive compared with BRT costs.
• It can be constructed and up and running quickly. London’s Emirates Airline which crosses the River Thames was open for business 10 months after construction began.
• CPT achieves high service quality with minimal resources. Maintenance costs are much smaller than for the individually motorized vehicles of BRT or LRT and they potentially need fewer staff with personnel only really required at each of the stations rather than in each vehicle.
• It is much more flexible when it comes to mountainous or water-laden terrain.

And, according to this accompanying graph, there are significant cost advantages:

Not sure where those numbers came from. Even so, before it's dismissed, entirely, it should be considered as a possible alternative to expanded bus or light rail solutions. If not on the proposed South 1st route, then perhaps somewhere else that makes more sense, for Austin.

[wwmiv]

nevermind.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by resansom

[*]It can be constructed and up and running quickly. London’s Emirates Airline which crosses the River Thames was open for business 10 months after construction began.

How can it be up and running quickly, if _no one_ makes such a system?

There are companies that sell larger trams. There are no companies that sell systems like the wire, where a smaller tram goes a half mile, gets disconnected from the wire, then moved to the next loop, repeat 18 times.

[urbancore]

Austin will never have a gondola in this form, full stop. Homeowners will NEVER vote themselves a tax increase for this. Next subject.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Using that logic, we should spend $15,000 on studying the effects of wishing really hard. And $15000 on a proposal to give everyone a Segway, and $15,000 ....

Seriously? Unecessary..

I have a friend who works for SANDAG out in San Diego. I don't know the details or really much of anything about the proposed route (as I didn't ask), but apparently they already have a feasibility study that says that a gondola system IS feasible there. Just because this Ficklin guy isn't a transportation expert and you don't trust him, doesn't mean that the general idea of a gondola system is completely kooky.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Seriously? Unecessary..

I have a friend who works for SANDAG out in San Diego. I don't know the details or really much of anything about the proposed route (as I didn't ask), but apparently they already have a feasibility study that says that a gondola system IS feasible there. Just because this Ficklin guy isn't a transportation expert and you don't trust him, doesn't mean that the general idea of a gondola system is completely kooky.

The "I have a friend" speech was one of MLK's greatest, I've heard.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Seriously? Unecessary..

I have a friend who works for SANDAG out in San Diego. I don't know the details or really much of anything about the proposed route (as I didn't ask), but apparently they already have a feasibility study that says that a gondola system IS feasible there. .

Here's the SANDAG study.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loca...308723601.html

http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/SkywayReport.pdf

I think this is very informative to contrast with "The Wire", and shows how the later is completely infeasible.

I've got lots of critiques coming, but probably the most critical:

The san diego proposal has 80 foot towers every 380 feet. Between the towers the cable sags down 13 feet.

Those towers are 5 feet by 5 feet at the base. The San Diego plan proposes taking street parking spaces for them, which are available on both sides of their corridor, adjacent to existing sidewalks on both sides, within a total 60 foot right of way.

South First Has No Street Parking


Another datapoint from that study. They estimate just labor costs at $1.8M per year.

Ficklin's proposal is 4.5 times as big, so _just labor_ costs can be estimated at $8M per year. Totally blowing away his estimate of "$3 million and $6 million." for total operations and maintenance.

And that's before you get to the fact that he proposes running it 5 hours longer per day.

Originally Posted by paul78701

Just because this Ficklin guy isn't a transportation expert and you don't trust him, doesn't mean that the general idea of a gondola system is completely kooky.

I didn't say gondolas _never_ work. There's some limited cases, usually with geographic barriers, where they can make sense.

If CTRMA was proposing "hey, let's take a look at if a single-link gondola might make sense anywhere in Austin", I might be on board.

But they're not. They're proposing spending my taxpayer dollars on studying whether Ficklin's "Wire One" to BFE Slaughter on South 1st makes sense.

We don't need a $15,000 study (or more, that San Diego one was apparently $75k) to tell that it's not possible.

[Novacek]

So let's look at how much it costs just for attendants.
Just for wages. Not including benefits, social security, etc.

First let's try the $10 / attendant San Diego used.

19 stations X 19 hours per day X 365 days /year = 131,765 hours.

Just for attendants, not all the other people that need to work. Not including other costs and maintenance.

1.3 Million, at $10 per hour.

Though you know CoA will want at _least_ a living wage of $13 per hour.

So $1.7 Million. Just in wages, just in attendants.

Ficklin's claim that total costs could be as little as $3M /year is flat out ludicrous.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The "I have a friend" speech was one of MLK's greatest, I've heard.

Look. I have no real motivation except to say that I think this should be studied. I'm not trying to mislead people or making shit up or whatever you're trying to insinuate. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that you should be a dick.