AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I said doubtful - not positive, but the frequency of light rail and the lesser noise, along with the necessity to rebuild all these crossings anyways (the whole thing would've been rebuilt with double track and caternary) would have made it obvious to put up gates at the same time.

I'm sorry, DART would not install gates, lights, and bells for just two homes. DART more likely would have demanded the closure of that driveway and look for an alternate access for those properties, in this case towards a street in that neighborhood vs MoPac's access road. Never-the-less, any solution would cost significantly more money than just having cross bucks - which is all the law requires.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by electricron

I'm sorry, DART would not install gates, lights, and bells for just two homes. DART more likely would have demanded the closure of that driveway and look for an alternate access for those properties, in this case towards a street in that neighborhood vs MoPac's access road. Never-the-less, any solution would cost significantly more money than just having cross bucks - which is all the law requires.

Again, you are not getting it. The light rail proposal would have required this intersection to be rebuilt anyways (two new tracks, caternary wire = require rebuild of approaches and crossing) - the added marginal cost of adding crossing gates at that point is pretty low.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Again, you are not getting it. The light rail proposal would have required this intersection to be rebuilt anyways (two new tracks, caternary wire = require rebuild of approaches and crossing) - the added marginal cost of adding crossing gates at that point is pretty low.

I got your point, you didn't get mine. A "private" driveway to a ranch style home isn't a street or road, therefore it would never qualify for funding to install crossing signals. DART runs across this little bit of law all the time, and has never installed crossing signals at "private" roads.
What could be done is what New Mexico's Railrunner did a few years ago. Get the "private" property owners and the local county and/or city governments together to build a single public road across the tracks so the private drives can be built to the new "public" street.
It's something the city of Austin or Travis county could have stepped up to do, i.e. building the street, so CapMetro could place automated gates, lights, and bells in. Of course, that would require the private property owners being cooperative and reasonable in selling the required land to make it all work properly. No cooperation from just one involved party usually means no crossing signals.
This problem can still be fixed.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by electricron

I got your point, you didn't get mine. A "private" driveway to a ranch style home isn't a street or road, therefore it would never qualify for funding to install crossing signals. DART runs across this little bit of law all the time, and has never installed crossing signals at "private" roads.
What could be done is what New Mexico's Railrunner did a few years ago. Get the "private" property owners and the local county and/or city governments together to build a single public road across the tracks so the private drives can be built to the new "public" street.
It's something the city of Austin or Travis county could have stepped up to do, i.e. building the street, so CapMetro could place automated gates, lights, and bells in. Of course, that would require the private property owners being cooperative and reasonable in selling the required land to make it all work properly. No cooperation from just one involved party usually means no crossing signals.
This problem can still be fixed.

Sigh.

Again, not getting the point.

Installing gates right now would be very expensive - given that the cost already incurred at this intersection was $0.00 for starting up the Red Line.

If you have to rebuild the intersection anyways, which they would have had to do here for light rail (and I don't know whether DART had to do anywhere or not), the ADDITIONAL cost to put in crossing gates at that time is negligible in the overall scheme of things. Certainly compared to the PR hit and service disruptions of even one crash, ever.

Thus, I think it's fairly likely they would have just gone ahead and done so - especially since the frequency of service would have been higher and the trains would have been even quieter. If they wouldn't have even considered it, they are morons. If DART didn't perform this same calculus, they are morons too.

[Mikey711MN]

Here's a modified Austin mobility plan based on Transit Working Group meetings thus far...



(huge version available here)

A few changes that stood out to me:

• New bridge crossing Lady Bird Lake
• Planned west campus service (on Guadalupe?)
• Some sort of P&R facility off of SH 71 & Riverside (as opposed to meandering through Metro Center)
• Hancock crossing at IH-35
• Possible Urban Rail extension down South Congress

[Jdawgboy]

Not many options for rail south of the river. I don't see why they cant use the east west track thats no longer in use that splits from the UP line near St. Elmo and goes east toward the airport. That would be a perfect urban rail route and could spur dense development through areas that are currently empty stretches. It also passes right by the South Congress transit center.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Not many options for rail south of the river. I don't see why they cant use the east west track thats no longer in use that splits from the UP line near St. Elmo and goes east toward the airport. That would be a perfect urban rail route and could spur dense development through areas that are currently empty stretches. It also passes right by the South Congress transit center.

That spur is owned by UP, which already is asking for both arms and both legs for an entirely new bypass rail corridor before allowing any "regional" trains on it's old MoPac mainline. As long as the spur is in use, don't expect urban rail on it.

I don't understand the need for urban rail to turn west and then run south on Congress with a new bridge crossing the lake just west of the convention center. Although I could understand why if they plan to cross the lake using the Congress Street bridge. But if they're going to build a new urban rail bridge across the lake, I would run the tracks straight south on Rio Grande or Trinity to the new bridge and avoid two sharp 90 degree turns on downtown streets. There's going to be enough 90 degree turns as is along potentially both 4th and 11th streets. I would ultimately bracket Congress with urban rail 3 blocks east and west, running just buses down Congress. Likewise, running urban rail on 4th and 11th will bracket 6th street. Golly, you have a rectangular street pattern downtown, take advantage of it placing urban rail and buses on different streets.

[nixcity]

I love it...I think it is basically solid, I would like to see the BRT as a rail line but overall it looks nice, I think going down Pleasant Valley is a good option for the future...I wonder if they have a basic timeline for the steps after the first line. Now it is time to start educating about this and the upcoming (hopefully) vote for the first line

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by electricron

That spur is owned by UP, which already is asking for both arms and both legs for an entirely new bypass rail corridor before allowing any "regional" trains on it's old MoPac mainline. As long as the spur is in use, don't expect urban rail on it.

That rail line has not been in use for years in fact they have the track blocked off at the split near St. Elmo. I live blocks from there and pass by it all the time. The track is falling apart so UP obviously has no plans to use it. That is why I think it would be perfect for urban rail.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

That rail line has not been in use for years in fact they have the track blocked off at the split near St. Elmo. I live blocks from there and pass by it all the time. The track is falling apart so UP obviously has no plans to use it. That is why I think it would be perfect for urban rail.

Apparently it will be. All the city has to do first is buy the corridor from UP. Then make the decision to build it instead of Riverside first?

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by electricron

I don't understand the need for urban rail to turn west and then run south on Congress with a new bridge crossing the lake just west of the convention center. Although I could understand why if they plan to cross the lake using the Congress Street bridge. But if they're going to build a new urban rail bridge across the lake, I would run the tracks straight south on Rio Grande or Trinity to the new bridge and avoid two sharp 90 degree turns on downtown streets. There's going to be enough 90 degree turns as is along potentially both 4th and 11th streets. I would ultimately bracket Congress with urban rail 3 blocks east and west, running just buses down Congress. Likewise, running urban rail on 4th and 11th will bracket 6th street. Golly, you have a rectangular street pattern downtown, take advantage of it placing urban rail and buses on different streets.

I think you must mean Colorado rather than Rio Grande. The latter dead-ends into Shoal Creek. Colorado is likely to be closed at 11th in front of the Governor's mansion, and has an historic fire tower at Lady Bird Lake that would preclude a bridge. There are already 3 bridges between Congress and Lamar, and none between Congress and IH-35. The Trinity Bridge will also include bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The alignment on Congress is to directly serve the heart of the business district. Brazos and San Jacinto have sections between 6th and 11th that are very steep. The vehicles contemplated to be used (60' modern streetcar rather than 90' LRVs) is precisely because of the need to turn 90 degrees in multiple locations downtown. A 90' LRV can just barely turn in an 80' ROW, but only leaves about 5' for sidewalks on corners. The City is already committed to 18' Great Streets sidewalks everywhere possible downtown.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by electricron

Apparently it will be. All the city has to do first is buy the corridor from UP. Then make the decision to build it instead of Riverside first?

The Bergstrom Spur is half owned by UP, and half by the City. The tracks themselves are not salvageable. The ROW would best be used as a spur off of LoneStar as an express connection between ABIA to SA airport. The surrounding land use is mostly industrial and would take a long time to change. Riverside already has substantial residential density and a lot more in the works.

[MichaelB]

As always. Thank you SecretAgentMan for your fact driven posts and information. Always useful

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

The Bergstrom Spur is half owned by UP, and half by the City. The tracks themselves are not salvageable. The ROW would best be used as a spur off of LoneStar as an express connection between ABIA to SA airport. The surrounding land use is mostly industrial and would take a long time to change. Riverside already has substantial residential density and a lot more in the works.

That is interesting... My only question about that is why would there be an express connect between our two airports? Unless one Airport (likely ABIA) is expected to become the dominant airport for the entire region and the rail connect would be a way for people to travel from SA's airport to ABIA for expanded direct flights and possible international flights...

[BevoLJ]

I love the idea of an express connection between the two airports. The airports have lots of short and long term parking and it would be easy to shuttle people from those to a near by LSR station.

[Jdawgboy]

Now I can see that happening more likely to what BevoLJ said for travelers in both cities to be able to use the rail to get around and with parking options that would lessen the need for them to use cars.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

I think you must mean Colorado rather than Rio Grande. The latter dead-ends into Shoal Creek.
The vehicles contemplated to be used (60' modern streetcar rather than 90' LRVs) is precisely because of the need to turn 90 degrees in multiple locations downtown. A 90' LRV can just barely turn in an 80' ROW, but only leaves about 5' for sidewalks on corners. The City is already committed to 18' Great Streets sidewalks everywhere possible downtown.

Colorado is one street west of Congress, on the opposite side of Congress where the streetcar enters downtown Austin from the north and south. Why suggest it instead of Trinity or Rio Grande? I recommended Trinity or Rio Grande to avoid making four 90 degree turns.
Just because you buy trains that can make 90 degree turns doesn't mean you should build more 90 degree turns than absolutely necessary. DART's south portal to the Central Expressway tunnel once had three sharp turns attempting to stay in city streets because of a reluctant property owner - and it didn't take DART long to abandon those sharp curves once they acquired the block needed to straighten out the tracks. Sharp curves are okay when necessary, but they do slow down system operations. For a streetcar to make 90 degree turns at downtown intersections, turning through multiple traffic lanes, all other traffic on both streets must be stopped. Ever tried to turn left from the right lane, or turn right from the left lane? Streetcars are asked to do that all the time when making 90 degree turns. You don't necessarily need to run streetcars down Congress to service its business.

Additionally, a decision that will have to be made soon is whether to run the streetcar tracks down the center of a street or along the curbs? I recommend curbs on one-way streets, and the center on two-way streets. Another decision to be made for one way streets, do you use the right or left lane, and do you go with or against regular traffic flow? You can only go against with dedicated lanes.

I'll admit I do not know how steep the grades are on the various streets in downtown Austin, but I am aware that there are devices that trains can use to overcome grades, costs will certainly play an issue.

[BevoLJ]

On both sides of Congress between 6th and 11th streets Congress is flanked by many large hills. I am sure those hills are an issue. I'm surprised they can go up Guadalupe. I can't imagine there is any way in hell they could make it up San Jacinto.

[BevoLJ]

Austin adds 10 miles to proposed urban rail system
By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 10:41 p.m. Thursday, May 10, 2012

Austin's urban rail plan is growing tentacles.

With a potential November public vote on a first segment of a downtown-centric, electric-powered rail system, City of Austin transportation planners have added about 10 miles to the 16.5-mile, $1.3 billion proposed system that has long been public.

The newest map shows rail lines reaching Southpark Meadows shopping center in far south Austin, MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) near West Fifth Street and at West 35th Street, the Triangle on Guadalupe Street and MetroRail's Crestview Station on North Lamar Boulevard.

Construction of any part of such a system is far from certain, and decisions by officials or the public on the newly proposed sections likely would be many years away. Nonetheless, retired political consultant Peck Young said city officials are making a politically savvy move.

"The only way you can get citywide support for those kinds of things is to have a citywide plan," said Young, executive director of Austin Community College's Center for Public Policy and Political Studies. "And that looks like what they're trying to do. I'm glad in particular that we decided to remember that South Austin is part of the city too."

The city's original urban rail proposal has been criticized both by rail skeptics —for being too concentrated in the central business district and thus failing to address highway congestion — and by some rail advocates, who have major quibbles with its route. That route connects Mueller in East Austin with Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, running through the University of Texas, the Capitol complex and downtown.

...

Read More: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...type=rss_local
...

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by electricron

Colorado is one street west of Congress, on the opposite side of Congress where the streetcar enters downtown Austin from the north and south. Why suggest it instead of Trinity or Rio Grande? I recommended Trinity or Rio Grande to avoid making four 90 degree turns.
Just because you buy trains that can make 90 degree turns doesn't mean you should build more 90 degree turns than absolutely necessary. DART's south portal to the Central Expressway tunnel once had three sharp turns attempting to stay in city streets because of a reluctant property owner - and it didn't take DART long to abandon those sharp curves once they acquired the block needed to straighten out the tracks. Sharp curves are okay when necessary, but they do slow down system operations. For a streetcar to make 90 degree turns at downtown intersections, turning through multiple traffic lanes, all other traffic on both streets must be stopped. Ever tried to turn left from the right lane, or turn right from the left lane? Streetcars are asked to do that all the time when making 90 degree turns. You don't necessarily need to run streetcars down Congress to service its business.

Additionally, a decision that will have to be made soon is whether to run the streetcar tracks down the center of a street or along the curbs? I recommend curbs on one-way streets, and the center on two-way streets. Another decision to be made for one way streets, do you use the right or left lane, and do you go with or against regular traffic flow? You can only go against with dedicated lanes.

I'll admit I do not know how steep the grades are on the various streets in downtown Austin, but I am aware that there are devices that trains can use to overcome grades, costs will certainly play an issue.

I'm not recommending Colorado, I'm only trying to figure out why you are recommending Rio Grande. Again, Rio Grande is well west of Congress, between Nueces and West Avenue. It dead ends into Shoal Creek at 4th Street, so it would not be a logical location for a bridge.

If (second guess) you really mean San Jacinto (between Brazos and Trinity), I explained in the previous post that San Jacinto has a very steep section (6 - 8%) that really pushes the limit on what an electric propulsion, steel wheel on rail vehicle can handle.