HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3881  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 12:33 AM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,592
Project Connect Central Corridor Locally Preferred Alternative video. (There you could have watched it in the time it took to describe it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk6ySb_mIAY#t=28

Last edited by H2O; Jun 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM. Reason: Laziness
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3882  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 1:02 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O View Post
Would it be too much to ask for the title of the YouTube video, or a sentence what it is about, so we can decide if its worth our time to view it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3883  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 5:52 PM
_Matt _Matt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 400
So wait, why are we voting for a proposal in November that isn't even on the long term vision map? This one shows it going to Mueller, not ACC. And to say it is "just the last stop" is a distortion of the route.

http://projectconnect.com/sites/defa...jectConnectMap

As a layperson, I'm wondering why route it through East downtown and the relatively barren part of campus when this is the lowest density route between MoPac and I-35?

Why are we running through Hancock neighborhood? Are we counting on induced dense development along the route and ignoring traffic on other routes? If so, are there potential development sites?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3884  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 6:51 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Matt View Post
So wait, why are we voting for a proposal in November that isn't even on the long term vision map? This one shows it going to Mueller, not ACC. And to say it is "just the last stop" is a distortion of the route.

http://projectconnect.com/sites/defa...jectConnectMap

As a layperson, I'm wondering why route it through East downtown and the relatively barren part of campus when this is the lowest density route between MoPac and I-35?

Why are we running through Hancock neighborhood? Are we counting on induced dense development along the route and ignoring traffic on other routes? If so, are there potential development sites?
Yep. Doesn't make sense to the public. This route has no shot at voter approval so I wouldn't worry about wasted tax dollars or an ineffective / efficient transit system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3885  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 6:59 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne....html?page=all
Quote:
Jun 16, 2014, 1:07pm CDT
Austin advisory group endorses Project Connect's rail plan; Council votes next

Robert Grattan
Staff Writer-
Austin Business Journal

Austin's Central Corridor Advisory Group has recommended Project Connect's $1.4 billion urban rail project that runs from Grove Boulevard to Highland Mall.

The 13-1 vote handed down late on June 13 sets the urban rail route up for an appearance at City Hall and then finally the ballot in November. While the advisory group's recommendation was largely expected, the vote also served as an important endorsement by a number of downtown business groups and prominent city leaders.

The vote also advances the entire project to an environmental review process which will be key to convincing the Federal Transit Administration to fund half the project. More information about the recommended 9.5-mile rail project is available online here.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3886  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 9:08 AM
JT5 JT5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 30
June 17, 2014 Joint Mtg: City Council/Capital Metro on Project Connect Central

Meeting replay from yesterday:

Quote:
AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AND CAPITAL METRO BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2014 AT 10:00 AM
AUSTIN CONVENTION CENTER

Project Connect: Central Corridor Joint Meeting

Agenda
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Recap of the Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA): Urban Rail Line from East Riverside to Highland
3. Discussion of Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
4. Next Steps for Action on the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
http://austintx.swagit.com/play/06172014-625

Notes:

-Martinez questions why ABIA is not included in the LPA (Item3&4 5:00)
-Riley brings up the Lamar/Guadalupe public support (Item3&4 54:00) and asks why LRT over BRT (Item3&4 58:00)
-Spelman asks why rail vs roads and buses (Item3&4 64:00)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3887  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 3:43 PM
TexasCreed TexasCreed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT5 View Post
Meeting replay from yesterday:



http://austintx.swagit.com/play/06172014-625

Notes:

-Martinez questions why ABIA is not included in the LPA (Item3&4 5:00)
-Riley brings up the Lamar/Guadalupe public support (Item3&4 54:00) and asks why LRT over BRT (Item3&4 58:00)
-Spelman asks why rail vs roads and buses (Item3&4 64:00)
This meeting had some very good answers on why the rail route has been chosen this way as well as why it couldn't be the Lamar route. This over 1 billion project is going to be half funded by FTA if they can make it look attractive enough. The FTA has already partially funded the BRT route and would not go for a complete rebuild into LRT. So funding 10 miles on Highland route vs funding 10 miles on Lamar and Guadalupe would cost Austin $500 million less. As long as the line passes the environmental review I don't see it being a problem getting FTA funding along this route. The Houston north route received $450 million of its $750 million cost and has a much lower ridership projection.

I thought it was interesting that they could actually make a decent case for connecting to the airport. If airport funds can be used for the station and rail on the ABIA land the funding gap is fairly small. (in terms of light rail) While still not incentive enough to include in the initial system you could see rail out to the airport 5 years or so after the initial system is built out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3888  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 4:09 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
The claims about the FTA and Guadalupe/Lamar are not true. Don't know how much simpler we can make this.

More here with further reading: http://m1ek.dahmus.org/?p=970
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3889  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 4:28 PM
_Matt _Matt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasCreed View Post
...
This over 1 billion project is going to be half funded by FTA if they can make it look attractive enough. The FTA has already partially funded the BRT route and would not go for a complete rebuild into LRT. So funding 10 miles on Highland route vs funding 10 miles on Lamar and Guadalupe would cost Austin $500 million less.
...
I know you're just the messenger TC, but I don't buy this. If the metrorapid was actual BRT (dedicated lanes, etc) and the FTA investment was more, I could see the argument. But the FTA funded only $38M on the metrorapid route. This is less than 10% of the proposed $500M FTA funding for the urban rail route. Moving from a glorified bus service to urban rail is a huge upgrade for the corridor. An upgrade enough to justify the expense, not to mention that the buses can just be moved to another route! Also metrorapid will be in service for years before urban rail is built out!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3890  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 4:41 PM
BlueEyes_Austin BlueEyes_Austin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasCreed View Post
This meeting had some very good answers on why the rail route has been chosen this way as well as why it couldn't be the Lamar route. This over 1 billion project is going to be half funded by FTA if they can make it look attractive enough. The FTA has already partially funded the BRT route and would not go for a complete rebuild into LRT. So funding 10 miles on Highland route vs funding 10 miles on Lamar and Guadalupe would cost Austin $500 million less. As long as the line passes the environmental review I don't see it being a problem getting FTA funding along this route. The Houston north route received $450 million of its $750 million cost and has a much lower ridership projection.
What utter nonsense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3891  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 5:01 PM
TexasCreed TexasCreed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Matt View Post
I know you're just the messenger TC, but I don't buy this. If the metrorapid was actual BRT (dedicated lanes, etc) and the FTA investment was more, I could see the argument. But the FTA funded only $38M on the metrorapid route. This is less than 10% of the proposed $500M FTA funding for the urban rail route. Moving from a glorified bus service to urban rail is a huge upgrade for the corridor. An upgrade enough to justify the expense, not to mention that the buses can just be moved to another route! Also metrorapid will be in service for years before urban rail is built out!
Ok good points from there I have to wonder still why there have been great efforts for the highland route? Does anyone in the planning process have a vested interest in having the rail routes farther east?

If mass construction of the BRT is needed to transfer it to rail then the BRT has been a failure as a precursor to urban rail. In Houston the Uptown BRT that is being built with dedicated lanes along its 7 mile route. The additional right of way is being purchased and left turn lanes sacrificed. In 10 years when they do turn it into rail it will be extrodinarily easy to place rail and the overhead wires to transfer the route. If Austins BRT route was closer to that configuration then perhaps there wouldn't be as much push back?

If all fails Austin will hopefully still accept the Highland route. It's just too late to change the ballot initiative for this year. If it fails then there won't be another try for 5 years and then you won't see rail service until 2024. The best case may be just to scrap the plans all together and try again next year or the year after. You need a comprehensive 25 year plan of buildout and how it will happen. Dallas's DART has know exactly where trains will run 30 years before the entire system was built out. Houston even has 2 lines planned out that don't have funding yet. I don't see why Austin hasn't planned ahead and figured out a comprehensive system before putting it to vote. Something like 3 light rail lines (with funding for 1) and 2 commuter lines built out over the next 30 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3892  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 5:05 PM
TexasCreed TexasCreed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueEyes_Austin View Post
What utter nonsense.
Ok so this the problem I've with this thread for a while. Instead of being informative if you look through the last 20 pages it has been combative. How is this comment helpful in doing anything other than push people away?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3893  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 5:50 PM
hereinaustin hereinaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Matt View Post
I know you're just the messenger TC, but I don't buy this. If the metrorapid was actual BRT (dedicated lanes, etc) and the FTA investment was more, I could see the argument. But the FTA funded only $38M on the metrorapid route. This is less than 10% of the proposed $500M FTA funding for the urban rail route. Moving from a glorified bus service to urban rail is a huge upgrade for the corridor. An upgrade enough to justify the expense, not to mention that the buses can just be moved to another route! Also metrorapid will be in service for years before urban rail is built out!
Yup, and if Austin tax payers are supposed pay half of the $1.4B needed for the current line proposal, why not just pay $700M (without FTA funding) for a smaller line running along the Guadalupe/Lamar corridor? We have the opportunity to get it right the first time and build a line that will have significantly higher ridership from the start.

A line running from Auditorium Shores/The Long Center to Highland Mall with a Guadalupe/Lamar alignment is ~5 miles long. $700M will most likely cover that line with money to spare, especially if we can be creative and use the existing bridge. Heck, we could also have a partial underground system from 1st Street to 15th Street (~1 mile) for that much money (if we used cut & cover).

This line could later be extended North to Parmer (~5 more miles), South to William Cannon (~5 more miles) and East on Riverside to the Airport (~5 more miles). This gives us a starting line with a far more CENTRAL alignment. With GL as the backbone and with the right extensions, we could have a comprehensive rail line that could actually make a dent in car use.

Of course, the BRT can probably be moved to Red River and the FTA would probably still fund a GL line once we're ready for construction around 2017.

Last edited by hereinaustin; Jun 18, 2014 at 7:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3894  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 6:45 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasCreed View Post
Ok so this the problem I've with this thread for a while. Instead of being informative if you look through the last 20 pages it has been combative. How is this comment helpful in doing anything other than push people away?
There's substantial evidence the Project Connect gang is pursuing astroturfing strategies to sow doubt to try to counteract the superior factual information on the LG side. Your questions were answered many times already.

That's why.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3895  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 6:59 PM
TexasCreed TexasCreed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
There's substantial evidence the Project Connect gang is pursuing astroturfing strategies to sow doubt to try to counteract the superior factual information on the LG side. Your questions were answered many times already.

That's why.

Ok yes but astroturfing for Who and What? For there to be a conspiracy as is being suggested there should be motivation. For what you suggest there needs to be more than negligence and incompetence. Someone's interest are being represented behind the scenes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3896  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 7:20 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasCreed View Post
The best case may be just to scrap the plans all together and try again next year or the year after. You need a comprehensive 25 year plan of buildout and how it will happen. Dallas's DART has know exactly where trains will run 30 years before the entire system was built out. Houston even has 2 lines planned out that don't have funding yet. I don't see why Austin hasn't planned ahead and figured out a comprehensive system before putting it to vote. Something like 3 light rail lines (with funding for 1) and 2 commuter lines built out over the next 30 years.
THIS! Austin needs to sell the full build out. Not a single line. And the highland route has not shot at passing muster with voters.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3897  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 7:24 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

I think the two most important things in the video were;
(1) They're planning a system to maximize getting FTA approval and (2) they're planning to use initially single light rail vehicles in dedicated lanes.
(1) explains why Gaudalupe and Lamar was avoided and why they are short of reaching the airport and (2) defines what they mean by urban rail, two light rail vehicles would be a light rail train.
I was also thankful that they will continue to look at potentially crossing the red line at grade or with an aerial structure, which should be significantly cheaper than the tunnel that's planned presently.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3898  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 7:26 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereinaustin View Post
A line running from Auditorium Shores/The Long Center to Highland Mall with a Guadalupe/Lamar alignment is ~5 miles long. $700M will most likely cover that line with money to spare, especially if we can be creative and use the existing bridge. Heck, we could also have a partial underground system from 1st Street to 15th Street (~1 mile) for that much money (if we used cut & cover).

This line could later be extended North to Parmer (~5 more miles), South to William Cannon (~5 more miles) and East on Riverside to the Airport (~5 more miles). This gives us a starting line with a far more CENTRAL alignment. With the right extensions, we could have a comprehensive rail line that could actually make a dent in car use. We really need to give more thought to alternative routes before we lock ourselves into the PC one.
This would be ideal.... a solid vertical spine through the city. Then go horizontal north and south of the river. Can always extend lines further east, west, north, south... But the key is the right spine. Again. We have no plan for full build out so I don't know how voters could ever be sold.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3899  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 7:28 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
I think the two most important things in the video were;
(1) They're planning a system to maximize getting FTA approval and (2) they're planning to use initially single light rail vehicles in dedicated lanes.
(1) explains why Gaudalupe and Lamar was avoided and why they are short of reaching the airport and (2) defines what they mean by urban rail, two light rail vehicles would be a light rail train.
I was also thankful that they will continue to look at potentially crossing the red line at grade or with an aerial structure, which should be significantly cheaper than the tunnel that's planned presently.
So are we designing for Fed $ or for the needs of the city? The appear to be at odds...

If we need to keep the eastern alignment I hope the northern most station is Stadium... then we can make better decisions with more time on how to extend north.

Based on ridership I'd just got with BRT up the eastern alignment... why pay so much for rail?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3900  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 8:21 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
I think the two most important things in the video were;
(1) They're planning a system to maximize getting FTA approval and (2) they're planning to use initially single light rail vehicles in dedicated lanes.
(1) explains why Gaudalupe and Lamar was avoided and why they are short of reaching the airport and (2) defines what they mean by urban rail, two light rail vehicles would be a light rail train.
I was also thankful that they will continue to look at potentially crossing the red line at grade or with an aerial structure, which should be significantly cheaper than the tunnel that's planned presently.
They're claiming the FTA as an excuse not to go to Guadalupe and Lamar. This is not the actual reason they are not going to Guadalupe and Lamar; it is, instead, a lack of political will to take some lanes away from cars on these corridors.

No less an authority than the guy who worked Rapid Bus with the FTA has come out in favor of Guadalupe/Lamar as the starter line. He would know better than anyone. The only way Project Connect has been able to make the claims they have made is that they ask the FTA leading questions like "what if we immediately stopped running Rapid Bus before it even started" (remember this was last fall), which is not actually what any of the Guadalupe/Lamar proponents are asking for.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:49 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.