AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by tildahat

But Austin is a completely uniquely unique city, unlike any that has ever existed in the history of mankind. Anything that has worked anywhere else will not work here, and make us just like Houston and Dallas, the only other two cities that exist. We must have a uniquely-Austin unique solution.

(Sorry, feeling a little cynical this morning...)

LOL - Nothing drives me crazier than the "we're Austin, what do we have to learn from other cities?" attitude

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Note that the cost estimates have gone from $2 - $5 million per mile to $12 - $24 million per mile. Frog Design are not transportation experts, they are a marketing and industrial design (consumer products) firm. They are simply not credible on this issue.

Gondolas have proven useful for short connections from one point to another, especially over difficult terrain. They have not been proven to be useful chained into a regional system. There are so many logistical issues with this concept, it is not worth further consideration.

This I wasn't aware of. Thanks for the info...I mean, I still would love to see Austin pin down a unique concept for a transit system. However, the most important thing, especially if the city wants to continue to draw young creative class-types, is that it have an adequate transit system at all.

When I visited Austin in 2011, the bus system was impressive...although my friend I crashed with lived right next to a bus stop on S 1st and William Cannon, and I'm used to the pathetic service standards in NYC's far flung borough of Staten Island. The MetroRapid looks like it could be a cost-effective and fast-implemeted solution (and the buses are nice), but something more long-term will be necessary if the current growth rate sustains even slightly.

I don't think Austin needs to worry about being to much like Dallas or Houston since that's pretty much impossible, but they can certainly set an example. After all, Austin is already working from an advantage. It's already cool, it just needs to keep that cool as it grows explosively. Perhaps, in a perfect world, they could use "the wire" as one component of a fully well-rounded system.

...and komeht, I think he was being sarcastic. It was definitely a "snap out of it" slap for me, I probably needed it.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

This I wasn't aware of. Thanks for the info...I mean, I still would love to see Austin pin down a unique concept for a transit system. However, the most important thing, especially if the city wants to continue to draw young creative class-types, is that it have an adequate transit system at all.

When I visited Austin in 2011, the bus system was impressive...although my friend I crashed with lived right next to a bus stop on S 1st and William Cannon, and I'm used to the pathetic service standards in NYC's far flung borough of Staten Island. The MetroRapid looks like it could be a cost-effective and fast-implemeted solution (and the buses are nice), but something more long-term will be necessary if the current growth rate sustains even slightly.

I don't think Austin needs to worry about being to much like Dallas or Houston since that's pretty much impossible, but they can certainly set an example. After all, Austin is already working from an advantage. It's already cool, it just needs to keep that cool as it grows explosively. Perhaps, in a perfect world, they could use "the wire" as one component of a fully well-rounded system.

...and komeht, I think he was being sarcastic. It was definitely a "snap out of it" slap for me, I probably needed it.

I know he was being sarcastic..I agree with his sentiment

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

False. Completely wrong.
From 2000-2010, Austin grew by 20%.
Leander grew by 250%
Manor grew by 318%
The other small outlying suburbs are similar.

And the small outlying suburbs that are actually in the service area are tiny. Again, Austin's population grew more in absolute numbers than did (Leander + the other tiny chunks in the service area).

Nice conspiracy theory, but like most such, it's completely wrong. Texas wasn't a swing state in 2000. And voter turnout in the 2000 election was actually _lower_ than either '96 or '04
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections...al/70-92.shtml

The suburban turnout in the 2000 election was for local Republicans trying to vote for their buddy W. The rail election was originally slated for May or November of 2001, until Krusee pushed it up. This is a fact - not a conspiracy theory.

One of us backs up claims with facts. The other resorts to namecalling. Which shows more contempt for the intelligence of other readers?

Well, you're slinging aggressively false and hostile information from behind the cloak of anonymity. I stand by everything I've said, and people know who I am.

Bonding isn't free money. It needs to be paid back. Let me try to put this in other terms. Cap Metro was taking in $X per month. They also were paying out ~$X per month. Doing so brought them to the brink of bankruptcy.

After 2000, they had to temporarily give up 1/4 cent of their sales tax revenue. In the counterfactual 2000 where they won the election, that 1/4 cent would have never been lost.

And, no, the operating expenses of the light rail line wouldn't have been considerably more than the commuter rail line. Electricity is cheaper than diesel; operating subsidies would have been far lower (fare revenue far higher). The overall operating picture would have been the same or even better.

Austin, Jonestown, Lago Vista, Leander, Manor, Point Venture, San Leanna, Volente
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital...Servicearea-15

All of them get to vote in a Cap Metro election. And while individually small, cumulatively they represent a fair number of votes. A proportion that has only increased since the 2000 election (see above).

Bullshit.

The Howard lane station is ~3 miles from Round Rock city limits. Over 5 miles from Cedar Park. ~3 miles from Pflugerville. The majority of residents in close proximity are in Austin.

And who cares about backtracking. If riding the train is going to save me commuting time and money, I'm going to take it. I'm not going to spite my nose for my face just because the station is 1 mile north of me instead of 1 mile south. If anything, being the contra-flow direction makes it even more likely for it to be Austin riders, as they're not fighting the rush hour direction.

Bullshit. I drew the map of the Lakeline station to show that it's virtually surrounded by non-taxpayers; only a small portion of Austin residents are even within a mile or two of it. A rider (who supports MetroRail) polled people one morning at Lakeline, and something north of 80% of the riders came from Cedar Park.

I could do a similar exercise for the Howard station (I drove by it just last weekend to take some pictures while my kid was at a birthday party across Mopac). There were no Austin residences within eyesight of the station; and the design of the roadways around there and the arrangement of residential areas indicates to me that in that area, it is very unlikely the majority of riders boarding live within the city limits.

You focusing on the distance to Round Rock city limits is stupid. A Round Rock resident could drive down 1325/Mopac 2 or 3 miles, quickly turn into Howard, and get on the train - far more conveniently than 99.9% of Austin residents could get there. It wouldn't actually cost the Round Rock resident any extra time; most of the Austin residents would be backtracking (which, in the real world, does, in fact, affect ridership).

I don't know who you are, but the people of this forum deserve better than to be misled by another A4PT or Capital Metro stooge.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But that's not what M1EK is claiming.
He has been _very_ vocal in his claim that the MetroRapid is _no_ improvement over the express bus service which is already operating in that corridor. But he can't have his cake and eat it too. If Metrorapid is no better than the existing express bus, then it doesn't prevent federal grants for rail in that corridor any more than the existence of the express bus line does.

He's claiming that rail would still be a substantial improvement over metrorapid, that there would still be compelling purpose and need, but the mere fact that some federal money was spent on the busses would prevent rail.

Don't be so hard on SecretAgentMan - you guys are fellow travellers - experts at misleading people from behind the cloak of anonymity.

SAM is pretending that I and the others are saying "urban rail" means "rail running in mixed traffic".

And YOU'RE pretending that the actual benefits of Rapid Bus are the same as the CLAIMED benefits of rapid bus.

Neither one of those assumptions is actually true.

1. Everybody pushing for rail up Guadalupe is pushing for a light rail solution running in its own lane. Nobody is stupid enough to run trains in traffic there. Not even the people at the city who appear stupid enough to do it elsewhere. And nobody ever argued for a streetcar solution stopping every block either. SAM is conflating that to make Capital Metro look better for avoiding the obvious slam-dunk rail corridor until the 2040s.

2. Rapid Bus has been sold to the Feds as a tremendous benefit, based on nebulous marketing tying together a bunch of individual treatments which, on the MAIN corridor, have no actual benefit. The theory pushed by snakes like JMVC, when they are forced down to actual details on the actual corridor being compared (rather than on the Burnet/S Lamar corridor, for instance), is that the sum will somehow be more than the parts. What it actually boils down to is more frequency if you happen to live next to an existing 101 stop; but less frequency if you live next to an existing 1 stop; and no improvement in time for either.

[M1EK]

BTW, to everybody else, sorry for the quick jump in tone. I woke up at 4:00 this morning to a kid telling me he puked all over the place; and haven't slept since - and just now got to work where my people are all worried about getting laid off after a layoff last week but the customer still thinks we're full-force and fat and happy.

I have no patience, time, or tolerance for homework designed to shout down or intimidate, and that's what this guy is doing. I was on the UTC in 2000 and on 6th/Congress on election night waving a sign - I know what happened then; and I know what happened in 2004 as well.

- Mike Dahmus

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

And the small outlying suburbs that are actually in the service area are tiny. Again, Austin's population grew more in absolute numbers than did (Leander + the other tiny chunks in the service area). .

But they're way less tiny than they were in 2000. Which means more rail-disinclined voters.

Let's look at the actual math (I'm using total population as proxy for registered voters, as it's easier to find, but I assure you the end result is the same, same with not using all the suburbs, but that should only help you):

Austin Population 2000: 656,562
Leander Population 2000: 7,596
Manor population 2000: 1,204
Lago Vista population 2000: 4,507

Austin in favor by 50.6% = 332220 in favor, 324341 against

Outlying suburbs against by, say, 80%

2661 in favor, 10645 against
grand total:

334881 in favor, 334986

margin of loss : 105 votes (less than it actually was, so the error in my round numbers is so far favoring you).

Austin Population 2010 : 790,390
Leander population 2010: 26,521
Manor population 2010 : 5,037
Lago Vista population 2010: 6,041

Austin 50.6% in favor
399937 for, 390452 against

suburbs at 80% against
7519 for, 30079 against

grand total:
407456 for, 420531 against

margin of loss:
13075 (way more than before) !!!!!

Austin grew by more total, but it barely favored it before. While the suburbs, which were massively against it, grew at a much larger rate. It would be even worse with today's (2013's) population numbers.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The suburban turnout in the 2000 election was for local Republicans trying to vote for their buddy W. The rail election was originally slated for May or November of 2001, until Krusee pushed it up. This is a fact - not a conspiracy theory.

There was no huge pro-W turnout in texas as a whole in 2000 (proof: link above). If you have numbers that show local results that differ (and weren't outweighed by an equally large anti-W turnout in Austin), provide them.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Well, you're slinging aggressively false and hostile information from behind the cloak of anonymity. I stand by everything I've said, and people know who I am.

Every one of my claims I'm backing up with facts, links, and math. They are not false. If you find the truth "hostile", that's not my problem.

Originally Posted by M1EK

And, no, the operating expenses of the light rail line wouldn't have been considerably more than the commuter rail line. Electricity is cheaper than diesel; operating subsidies would have been far lower (fare revenue far higher). The overall operating picture would have been the same or even better.

The cost of diesel is a small percentage of the total operating costs of the rail line (I believe I've seen it computed at something like 10%). Personel costs, insurance, etc. are more. And most of those expenses scale with the frequency, which would be far greater in the light rail plan. I believe Austin was estimating ~20 million a year for the far shorter line it's now looking at: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...il-el-1/nRrBd/

Originally Posted by M1EK

Bullshit.

More enlightened conversation. If you can disprove any of my facts or sources, do so.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I could do a similar exercise for the Howard station (I drove by it just last weekend to take some pictures while my kid was at a birthday party across Mopac). There were no Austin residences within eyesight of the station; and the design of the roadways around there and the arrangement of residential areas indicates to me that in that area, it is very unlikely the majority of riders boarding live within the city limits.

And I bet there were no Cedar Park, Pflugerville, or Round Rock residences within eyesight either. I find this claim particularly amusing, since I used to live in the apartments (in Austin) across the road from the Howard station.

Originally Posted by M1EK

You focusing on the distance to Round Rock city limits is stupid. A Round Rock resident could drive down 1325/Mopac 2 or 3 miles, quickly turn into Howard, and get on the train - far more conveniently than 99.9% of Austin residents could get there.

Or an Austin resident could drive _1_ mile up or down the road and quickly turn onto Howard. And if your criteria on transit stations is that a single station needs to conveniently serve 99.9% of Austin residents (a physical impossibility) you'll be waiting a long time. (and no, a Round Rock resident couldn't drive 2 miles to the station, as there are _no_ round rock residents within 2 miles of the station. There are however thousands of Austin residents within 2 miles).

Originally Posted by M1EK

It wouldn't actually cost the Round Rock resident any extra time; most of the Austin residents would be backtracking (which, in the real world, does, in fact, affect ridership).

It takes the exact same amount of time for an Austin resident 3 miles from the station to drive there as a Round Rock resident 3 miles to drive there. Actually, probably less, since the Austin residents south of the station are fighting less traffic. If taking the train saves the Austin resident commuting time (from skipping traffic) it is immaterial whether they're driving north or south.

Originally Posted by M1EK

I don't know who you are, but the people of this forum deserve better than to be misled by another A4PT or Capital Metro stooge.

And again with the name calling. I am making completely factual postings, which disprove _your_ misleading and provably incorrect claims.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by Komeht

I know he was being sarcastic..I agree with his sentiment

And just to be clear, I wasn't directing it any posters here specifically, so much as the notion we're discussing gondolas as an alternative to tried and true methods like dedicated lane light rail. I see it as another manifestation of the "Austin is unique! We must have a unique solution!" nonsense. The latter is foolish, the first is just plain not true, except in the pedantic sense.

We might have light rail now if not for the subset of transit enthusiasts who insisted that no, we must have monorail and monorail only.

(I actually have multiple friends who work at Frog, so some of them may have worked on the gondola idea - if so don't take this personally! )

One main issue with gondolas is the load/unload time. They don't scale very well for rush hour commuting. It's possibly they might make a nice tourist attraction/downtown circulator, i.e. convention center to Long center to Seaholm, but that's a different calculus than high capacity mass transit.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by Komeht

LOL - Nothing drives me crazier than the "we're Austin, what do we have to learn from other cities?" attitude

I agree. We have everything to learn from other cities around the world. As progressive as Austin likes to bill itself...It really is a joke compared to many other cities around the globe on environment, transportation, architecture, government, etc…

As a recent example: the City recently approved up to $10MM out of $14MM in 2013 budget surplus money toward affordable housing projects…a direct slap in the face to the voting citizens of Austin!!! If they cared about the public, why didn’t they approve $14MM in property tax cuts to it’s citizens? Just like most left-wing politicians…”Hey, we’ve got money…let’s spend it toward those who will vote for us the next time around. We’ll be able to overcome the 80% of our voting population that does not trust us in disseminating funds toward affordable housing.”

If done correctly…and not meddled with, we should see some big changes in attitude with the new 10-1 representative council.

Current City Council of Austin…your days are numbered!!! Especially Morrison and her little pet Tovo.

Morrison, Tovo, Martinez: if you care so much about the “poor & underserved,” get off your “mount” and choose to live in an amongst them today and going forward. Choose to bring your family up in those neighborhoods. Have your kids grow up going in those public schools. You hippocrates!!!

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I agree. We have everything to learn from other cities around the world. As progressive as Austin likes to bill itself...It really is a joke compared to many other cities around the globe on environment, transportation, architecture, government, etc…

As a recent example: the City recently approved up to $10MM out of $14MM in 2013 budget surplus money toward affordable housing projects…a direct slap in the face to the voting citizens of Austin!!! If they cared about the public, why didn’t they approve $14MM in property tax cuts to it’s citizens? Just like most left-wing politicians…”Hey, we’ve got money…let’s spend it toward those who will vote for us the next time around. We’ll be able to overcome the 80% of our voting population that does not trust us in disseminating funds toward affordable housing.”

If done correctly…and not meddled with, we should see some big changes in attitude with the new 10-1 representative council.

Current City Council of Austin…your days are numbered!!! Especially Morrison and her little pet Tovo.

Morrison, Tovo, Martinez: if you care so much about the “poor & underserved,” get off your “mount” and choose to live in an amongst them today and going forward. Choose to bring your family up in those neighborhoods. Have your kids grow up going in those public schools. You hippocrates!!!

Affordable housing programs are a joke. So much money wasted to benefit so few. A lot of people hear about affordable housing initiatives and think it's great. But that's a simple minded idealistic reaction. If they did (or understood) the math, it should be obvious that it's a waste of their tax dollars.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...-linger/nWYDB/

Posted: 6:35 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 23, 2013
STATESMAN IN DEPTH: TRANSPORTATION
Austin rail push resumes, but key questions linger

By Ben Wear
American-Statesman Staff

After slamming the brakes last year on planning for the long-envisioned urban rail system in Austin, city leaders in recent months have rejuvenated efforts to bring a plan to voters by next year.

That urgency, Austin City Council members say, is tied at least in part to what is likely to be unprecedented turnover of the council as it goes from seven at-large members now to 11 district-based members in January 2015. Most or even all of that expanded council will be new to the intricacies of running Austin, and the learning curve could force urban rail onto the slow track yet again if voters haven’t yet approved a first segment costing a half billion dollars or more.

Planning for a system of electric-powered cars — which would connect with Capital Metro’s 32-mile commuter line from Leander to downtown Austin — slowed for several months after city leaders last spring backed away from calling a November 2012 rail election. But the council in December approved an additional $232,000 for what had been a dormant environmental impact study on a first segment of urban rail, work that began in 2011 and has total authorized funding of $700,000. And the city and Capital Metro recently decided to jointly hire an urban rail program director for as much as $175,000 a year.

[Komeht]

This is a repeat of a question posted above regarding the light rail debate - posted a pic diagram of my proposed route. Seems the major debate right now for the initial line is between those who favor a route on Guadalupe/Lavaca through the densest areas of town and those who favor a route to Mueller on east side of Campus - which has certain advantages as well. A question I have is - why can't both be accommodated in the same route? I Posted a proposed picture below: The route would go right through or very near by:

CBD
Capitol Complex
West Campus/University
North University
The Triangle
Hyde Park
Hancock Center
Tie into Redline
Cherrywood/Delwood
Mueller
Servicing Station



The tricky part of course is the section of Guadalupe - but the line could be buried, or split or elevated or something through there - much denser cities than Austin have found ways to make rail work in tight spots.

In anycase. I do see benefit in building Guadalupe Route. I don't seen any benefit in excluding Mueller. By the time a line is approved (late 2014), studied, engineered, funded, built - Mueller will likely be well on the way to being very well developed and it will make a lot of sense to have a rail to there. The route would tie in both existing density and new density and go through the areas of town perhaps most receptive to an initial line. Future extensions could go up from the Triangle along Lamar all the way up to say 183 and down 51st and up Berkman.

So - is there a reason why we can't do both a Mueller and a Guadalupe/Lavaca Route?

I also am unclear on why there needs to be an extension out to ABIA - seems like I would run a future line right down South Lamar to Ben White Blvd.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

So - is there a reason why we can't do both a Mueller and a Guadalupe/Lavaca Route?
.

There is no technical reason. The issues are financial reasons.

Originally Posted by Komeht

The tricky part of course is the section of Guadalupe - but the line could be buried, or split or elevated or something through there

Yes, but not at the costs that are currently being discussed.

We have basically 4 options:

1. Do an elevated/subterranean line through the corridor in question. Hope that the price for such doesn't give the voters "sticker shock".
Given that this isn't on the table, I can only assume that city/metro pollsters have tested and confirmed that it's a non-starter. Or the accountants have confirmed that the city/metro simply doesn't have the money for our matching half.

2. Do an at-grade line through the corridor in question (exclusive running). Still hope that voters are willing to pay enough money for the eminent domain necessary, AND are willing to lose the traffic lanes necessary where there's simply no room to widen. This is basically what lost in 2000. How it would fair today, who knows, but demographic factors are against it.

3. Do an at-grade line through the corridor, shared. And now it gets stuck in traffic. It's no better than the metrorapid, only 10 times the cost.

4. Do a line through another corridor. Hope that changes the conversation (encourages more increased density, more riders, positive view of rail) enough so that you can revisit the corridor later and do options 1 or 2.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

There is no technical reason. The issues are financial reasons.



Yes, but not at the costs that are currently being discussed.

We have basically 4 options:

1. Do an elevated/subterranean line through the corridor in question. Hope that the price for such doesn't give the voters "sticker shock".
Given that this isn't on the table, I can only assume that city/metro pollsters have tested and confirmed that it's a non-starter. Or the accountants have confirmed that the city/metro simply doesn't have the money for our matching half.

2. Do an at-grade line through the corridor in question (exclusive running). Still hope that voters are willing to pay enough money for the eminent domain necessary, AND are willing to lose the traffic lanes necessary where there's simply no room to widen. This is basically what lost in 2000. How it would fair today, who knows, but demographic factors are against it.

3. Do an at-grade line through the corridor, shared. And now it gets stuck in traffic. It's no better than the metrorapid, only 10 times the cost.

4. Do a line through another corridor. Hope that changes the conversation (encourages more increased density, more riders, positive view of rail) enough so that you can revisit the corridor later and do options 1 or 2.

Seems like option 3 is a non starter. As far as option 2 - if elevated or buried isn't an option, could do something like a short single track section running in its own lane with a well placed double track stop (or two) so that trains could pass each other and schedules remain frequent. Is there a technical reason why you couldn't single track up Guadalupe and put a double track stop in a strategic position (maybe condemn a single lot somewhere, like the 7-11 near 26th).

If the money isn't available for option 1 - I don't see how doing option 4 makes option 1 more feasible in the future.

Also, once you build the alternative corridor through East Campus/Mueller, the case for Option 1 or 2 becomes much less compelling or urgent (such that I can see it would never get built).

I guess it just makes sense to me that if we are going to do light rail we start with the best route first and not a route that will be the easiest to achieve politically. It also seems to me that the best route can and maybe even should include both Guadalupe/West Campus and Mueller.

I know this is the tough route to establish, but once you have great starter route, it seems easy and natural to build extensions up N. Lamar, out Burnett, down S. Lamar, down S. Congress out Riverside, etc.

edit - sorry - forgive my ignorance, I'm learning as I go along on this. But I look at videos on youtube of lightrail in Europe and it looks like they single track all the time in narrow roads and have double track interlaced to keep schedules going. Why can't we do that in the tight section of Guadalupe?

Seems like for as challenging as it looks to us, other cities with rail have dealt with much tougher sections and seem to come up with solutions and make them work. Is there a technical reason why what I propose - single tracking in the difficult stretch and interlace with double track sections where possible, can't work?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

As far as option 2 - if elevated or buried isn't an option, could do something like a short single track section running in its own lane with a well placed double track stop (or two) so that trains could pass each other and schedules remain frequent. Is there a technical reason why you couldn't single track up Guadalupe and put a double track stop in a strategic position (maybe condemn a single lot somewhere, like the 7-11 near 26th).

I believe that in the very width-constrained sections, even a single-track segment would require removing a lane. Plus whatever room is necessary for a boarding platform.

Also, I wonder (I'm also not an expert) if this is another case of the Feds and their regulations screwing things up. They may have regulations against two directions sharing a single track without sufficient temporal or physical separation (so a single lot's worth of double-tracking might not be sufficient, assuming that such a short segment even lets you keep sufficient frequency). Hypothetically, such regulations might not exist in Europe (your later observation).

Originally Posted by Komeht

If the money isn't available for option 1 - I don't see how doing option 4 makes option 1 more feasible in the future.

In 10-15 years, Austin is X% bigger, has X% larger population, property values are x% higher. That could give you more money to work with, as long as X > Y (the inflation in the construction costs).
That's if we don't have the money at all. If we do, but don't have enough voter buy-in to prioritize it over all the other projects and programs that have voter favor, that could change if enough people start using and enjoying a first line.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I believe that in the very width-constrained sections, even a single-track segment would require removing a lane. Plus whatever room is necessary for a boarding platform.

Also, I wonder (I'm also not an expert) if this is another case of the Feds and their regulations screwing things up. They may have regulations against two directions sharing a single track without sufficient temporal or physical separation (so a single lot's worth of double-tracking might not be sufficient, assuming that such a short segment even lets you keep sufficient frequency). Hypothetically, such regulations might not exist in Europe (your later observation).


In 10-15 years, Austin is X% bigger, has X% larger population, property values are x% higher. That could give you more money to work with, as long as X > Y (the inflation in the construction costs).
That's if we don't have the money at all. If we do, but don't have enough voter buy-in to prioritize it over all the other projects and programs that have voter favor, that could change if enough people start using and enjoying a first line.

As far as losing a lane - yes that will be necessary, but that's a trade to gain a high capacity transit line. At some point, we have to make a decision about whether rail is worth it for that. And that decision as to losing a lane doesn't change anytime in the future.

I never use Guadalupe anymore during the semester anyway, it just isn't worth it - so losing the lane isn't a big deal to me anymore. And I bet most people have found routes around Guadalupe that are preferable. And yeah, it would be an enormously painful construction period - but that's going to be true anytime we build a line there, whether now or 20 years from now. Also, there's a lane of parking that could be 86'd as well on most of Guadalupe.

As for fed requirements - not sure what they are. If they say single track is a no-go for whatever reason, then I guess its a no-go. I guess what I'm hearing is that as a technical matter, single-track, interlaced with double track might be feasible if enough space is available for the double track sections.

I think M1ek and others have me convinced that Guadalupe is better option - but I completely disagree with them regarding Mueller not being a good location for rail as well - I think it's actually almost as good as Guadalupe when you think about what it will be by the time rail is actually built. So, if the technical matters can be worked out on Guadalupe (whether single track as I suggest, or elevate or bury if we win some kind of municipal lottery) AND, if the route could include Mueller along the lines of something I propose above, then I think we'd have the best of all possible starter routes. I'm not sure it would be all that much more pricey (assuming you can single-track sections) than the route to Mueller (other than it might involve some more distance - so maybe that incremental cost on extra mile of track).

Anyway, thanks for your response. I think educating the public such as myself (as least the public who will pay attention to this) is going to be a major challenge - there are so many complicated issues to consider and most people will probably be either for or against whatever route is chosen, just because they're inclined to be for or against rail at all.

[KevinFromTexas]

Rainey St. parking meters activate Thursday