HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3781  
Old Posted May 15, 2014, 4:16 AM
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...ur-months.html
Quote:
May 14, 2014, 2:32pm CDT
B-cycle surpasses 50,000 trips in four months, plans Austin expansion

Robert Grattan
Staff Writer-
Austin Business Journal

B-cycle, Austin's bicycle sharing service, has surpassed 50,000 trips four months after the kiosks opened to bikers downtown.

The system has doubled projected first-year usage through this point and will expand to meet demand, according to a release sent out by Austin B-cycle. The nonprofit plans to add four locations and expand three due to high usage.

New locations include a second Convention Center and Rainey District station, South Lamar Boulevard near Barton Springs Road, and restaurant row on Barton Springs Road. Expansion of current stations will occur at Fourth Street and Congress Avenue, South Congress Avenue and Academy, and the Pfluger Bridge at 2nd Street. Expansions are expected to begin in early June, according to the release.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3782  
Old Posted May 15, 2014, 6:33 AM
DoubleC's Avatar
DoubleC DoubleC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 309
The thing that concerns me with the bike system is if you arrive at a station, and there isn't any room to park your bike, leaving you with the bike for longer, which means you'll be paying for more.

Why just a half hour for free though? I remember in Vienna where they have basically the same system, you could ride for free for under an hour, park somewhere, then come back to ride again. I love loopholes!

Also, nobody made a comment about this that I posted a while ago (it was at the bottom of the page):

Toll lanes proposed along SH 71 near ABIA

http://kxan.com/2014/04/01/toll-lane...-71-near-abia/

Even the tiniest stretches of roads can't be built free anymore (well, except Ben White at 71, thank heavens that's going to be free).

This was published on April the 1st. Hopefully the toll part was an April fools joke lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3783  
Old Posted May 15, 2014, 1:24 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleC View Post
The thing that concerns me with the bike system is if you arrive at a station, and there isn't any room to park your bike, leaving you with the bike for longer, which means you'll be paying for more.
Check the app, and make sure there's free spaces at your intended destination.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3784  
Old Posted May 15, 2014, 2:34 PM
Slappy Slappy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleC View Post
The thing that concerns me with the bike system is if you arrive at a station, and there isn't any room to park your bike, leaving you with the bike for longer, which means you'll be paying for more.
The stations are really close to one another, when this happens I just cruise to the next one a block away. Also, on longer trips, I've been able to check in a bike and then immediately check the same one out again to lengthen the rental without getting charged for going over 30 min.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3785  
Old Posted May 15, 2014, 7:09 PM
ivanwolf's Avatar
ivanwolf ivanwolf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 469
B-Cycle is not free for the first 30min. You have to pay $4 to rent, pay another $4 after 30min, or pay $8/day plus $4 every 30min after the first 30min. or pay annually $80 and pay $4 after the first 30min. it is not free.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3786  
Old Posted May 16, 2014, 6:09 AM
DoubleC's Avatar
DoubleC DoubleC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 309
Huh weird. I thought it was free for a second. Oh well. It's convenient and affordable anyways.

I would hope the app tells you a few bikers are about to take your spot at the station!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3787  
Old Posted May 18, 2014, 8:14 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Exactly.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3788  
Old Posted May 18, 2014, 8:23 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleC View Post
The thing that concerns me with the bike system is if you arrive at a station, and there isn't any room to park your bike, leaving you with the bike for longer, which means you'll be paying for more.

Why just a half hour for free though? I remember in Vienna where they have basically the same system, you could ride for free for under an hour, park somewhere, then come back to ride again. I love loopholes!

Also, nobody made a comment about this that I posted a while ago (it was at the bottom of the page):

Toll lanes proposed along SH 71 near ABIA

http://kxan.com/2014/04/01/toll-lane...-71-near-abia/


Even the tiniest stretches of roads can't be built free anymore (well, except Ben White at 71, thank heavens that's going to be free).

This was published on April the 1st. Hopefully the toll part was an April fools joke lol.
Yea this is something I am unhappy about but seriously until we replace the entire state government to something other than the status quo, then expect a lot more toll roads. There are better ways to build roads but of course the state doesn't care.

A little side note about the fighting on this thread. I understand that every now and again most of us have heated discussions and arguments, but I would like to believe that over the years we have become friends, if not in person then in spirit. It is a fun time meeting everybody that shows up at forum meets and I think it is about time for a another forum meet.

I just don't like seeing personal attacks on here. Is this a debate? Sure of course it is, but we should be able to debate without getting personal because it makes me sad when that happens. Lets have a good debate and at the end of the day...
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3789  
Old Posted May 18, 2014, 3:29 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Yea this is something I am unhappy about but seriously until we replace the entire state government to something other than the status quo, then expect a lot more toll roads. There are better ways to build roads but of course the state doesn't care.
The last time the legislature raised the gas tax to pay for more highways, more than 50% of the increase went directly into the state's bank account to be spend on other purposes than highways. That is still the status today. It's difficult to ask voters and legislators to raise the gas tax again when the last gas tax increase isn't 100% committed to highways.
How to fund transportation projects in the future could be debated forever in its own thread in this forum. What's encouraging is that TXDOT does a very good job spending its revenues where it collects it, by county and highway district, over a short cycle of years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3790  
Old Posted May 18, 2014, 10:32 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
The last time the legislature raised the gas tax to pay for more highways, more than 50% of the increase went directly into the state's bank account to be spend on other purposes than highways. That is still the status today. It's difficult to ask voters and legislators to raise the gas tax again when the last gas tax increase isn't 100% committed to highways.
How to fund transportation projects in the future could be debated forever in its own thread in this forum. What's encouraging is that TXDOT does a very good job spending its revenues where it collects it, by county and highway district, over a short cycle of years.
The Texas Speaker said his future budgets will cut out those non-roadway expenses from that gas tax fund. It will put $1.3 billion back into roadways every two years.

http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/pr...bill_code=4565
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3791  
Old Posted May 19, 2014, 3:07 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
The Texas Speaker said his future budgets will cut out those non-roadway expenses from that gas tax fund. It will put $1.3 billion back into roadways every two years.

http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/pr...bill_code=4565
My solution: End the diversions but stop exempting gas from sales tax (which will become general fund revenue).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3792  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 11:35 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
It just shows the kind of problems the state government has. The money from the gas tax should have never been used for anything other than road improvments or new roads. Its funny how there is this anti tax stigma in this state yet, they find all sorts of ways to get the money even if its for something else.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3793  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 12:51 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Stealing from this fund goes back 80 years. I'm glad they are trying to take steps to fix it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3794  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 9:25 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...rban-ra/nfyFn/
Three alternates have arisen for the northern terminus of Austin's light rail plan.
(1) Highland, (2) Hancock, and (3) Dean Keaton. The mayor would like to see the whole capital cost drop below $1 billion, and terminating the northern terminus short of Highland at Hancock saves $400 million of which $200 million was a tunnel under the red line and I-35. Additionally, limiting the cost to 1 billion means requiring only a 3% tax increase for bonding, the full $1.4 billion line would require a 6% tax increase. The shorter line also saves $5 million every year in operating costs, $17 million vs $22 million, for a 7 days per week, 20 hours per day, operations.
IMHO, dropping the expensive tunnel is a good idea. Passengers could transfer to the red line to get to Highland from Hancock if a station for the red line was built at Hancock. That additional platform and station should cost less than 1% of building the tunnel alone, not considering the costs of additional urban rail tracks and platforms north of Hancock. Stopping at Keaton leaves the option of turning west vs east later and eventually rerouting the tracks on Guadalupe vs Red River. It might be a great idea to install the turnouts there anyways now even if tracks heading west are left for later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3795  
Old Posted May 21, 2014, 11:49 PM
hereinaustin hereinaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...rban-ra/nfyFn/
Three alternates have arisen for the northern terminus of Austin's light rail plan.
(1) Highland, (2) Hancock, and (3) Dean Keaton. The mayor would like to see the whole capital cost drop below $1 billion, and terminating the northern terminus short of Highland at Hancock saves $400 million of which $200 million was a tunnel under the red line and I-35. Additionally, limiting the cost to 1 billion means requiring only a 3% tax increase for bonding, the full $1.4 billion line would require a 6% tax increase. The shorter line also saves $5 million every year in operating costs, $17 million vs $22 million, for a 7 days per week, 20 hours per day, operations.
IMHO, dropping the expensive tunnel is a good idea. Passengers could transfer to the red line to get to Highland from Hancock if a station for the red line was built at Hancock. That additional platform and station should cost less than 1% of building the tunnel alone, not considering the costs of additional urban rail tracks and platforms north of Hancock. Stopping at Keaton leaves the option of turning west vs east later and eventually rerouting the tracks on Guadalupe vs Red River. It might be a great idea to install the turnouts there anyways now even if tracks heading west are left for later.
Any guess on what it would cost to go from the airport to Dean Keaton (instead of from Grove)? If that could be done for <$1.38B, that would be fantastic and would still leave flexibility for the north route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3796  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 2:54 AM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereinaustin View Post
Any guess on what it would cost to go from the airport to Dean Keaton (instead of from Grove)? If that could be done for <$1.38B, that would be fantastic and would still leave flexibility for the north route.
Honest question, how often per _year_ do you (or anyone else pushing a route to the airport) actually fly into/out of Austin?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3797  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 5:39 AM
hereinaustin hereinaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
Honest question, how often per _year_ do you (or anyone else pushing a route to the airport) actually fly into/out of Austin?
I fly into/out of ABIA ~2-4/week. I wouldn't mind not having to sit in traffic, pay for gas, find parking, wait to be shuttled to/from my lot, etc. I'm probably not alone.

If we had the route, I'm willing to bet (no hard proof, of course) that there would be more people using the line on average between Downtown <-> Riverside <-> Airport than from Downtown <-> Highland. Swap the currently proposed northern route with Guadalupe/Lamar and I bet the whole system would see much higher volumes.

I just think a fair evaluation of the route I'm describing should be offered to tax payers alongside the current proposal. It's kind of whack for the city to offer us just one option that ignores a lot of the people who want to see a solid rail line in Austin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3798  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 6:00 AM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,263
Here's a nifty little link

Mapping Cap Metro Stops by Passenger Activity

The stop at the airport is Stop ID 4326 ABIA Lower Level. On an average weekday, there were 303 "ons" and 293 "offs" for a total ridership of 596 per day. Its Stop rank is 73, meaning there are 72 other stops around the city that are busier. We already have the #100 Airport Flyer that goes to downtown and UT and the #350 that goes out to ACC Riverside. I don't think changing it to a train is going to increase ridership.

Also, parking is a big source of revenue for the airport. Train service to the airport would have the potential to take away from that.

If train service ever was extended to the airport, I'm thinking that the airport station and the tracks that are actually on airport property could be paid for out of the airport's Capital Improvement funds. The taxpayers would have to pay for the part from Grove to the airport's boundary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3799  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 5:16 PM
tildahat tildahat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...rban-ra/nfyFn/
Three alternates have arisen for the northern terminus of Austin's light rail plan.
(1) Highland, (2) Hancock, and (3) Dean Keaton. The mayor would like to see the whole capital cost drop below $1 billion, and terminating the northern terminus short of Highland at Hancock saves $400 million of which $200 million was a tunnel under the red line and I-35. Additionally, limiting the cost to 1 billion means requiring only a 3% tax increase for bonding, the full $1.4 billion line would require a 6% tax increase. The shorter line also saves $5 million every year in operating costs, $17 million vs $22 million, for a 7 days per week, 20 hours per day, operations.
IMHO, dropping the expensive tunnel is a good idea. Passengers could transfer to the red line to get to Highland from Hancock if a station for the red line was built at Hancock. That additional platform and station should cost less than 1% of building the tunnel alone, not considering the costs of additional urban rail tracks and platforms north of Hancock. Stopping at Keaton leaves the option of turning west vs east later and eventually rerouting the tracks on Guadalupe vs Red River. It might be a great idea to install the turnouts there anyways now even if tracks heading west are left for later.
I still don't understand the need for the tunnel. Wouldn't an overpass be cheaper? I'd like to see the line go all the way to Highland, but I really think the tunnel could be the difference between passage and failure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3800  
Old Posted May 22, 2014, 5:19 PM
tildahat tildahat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereinaustin View Post
I fly into/out of ABIA ~2-4/week. I wouldn't mind not having to sit in traffic, pay for gas, find parking, wait to be shuttled to/from my lot, etc. I'm probably not alone.

If we had the route, I'm willing to bet (no hard proof, of course) that there would be more people using the line on average between Downtown <-> Riverside <-> Airport than from Downtown <-> Highland. Swap the currently proposed northern route with Guadalupe/Lamar and I bet the whole system would see much higher volumes.

I just think a fair evaluation of the route I'm describing should be offered to tax payers alongside the current proposal. It's kind of whack for the city to offer us just one option that ignores a lot of the people who want to see a solid rail line in Austin.
Airport connections are one of those things that seem like a good first step, but really don't generate as many passengers as people think, especially until the system they connect to is more fully developed. Denver is, at this point, decades ahead of us on building their rail system and still don't have an airport connection.

Not saying it's not nice to have, but most transit experts would argue that it's probably a step for later.
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 2:38 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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