AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[lzppjb]

None of these even come close to where I live or work in South Austin, so it's hard for me to get riled up about it one way or another.

[SecretAgentMan]

The redevelopment plan for Highland Mall will add almost 1 M SF of commercial development and over 800 residential units to the existing 1.4 M SF mall being repurposed for ACC.

For comparison, both the Triangle and Mueller have around 800 multi-family units completed or currently under construction.

At build-out (2020), Mueller will have about twice as much commercial / institutional SF as Highland and about 7 times as many residential units. About half of the residential units will be multi-family, mostly in and around the town center.

With rail, Mueller may be able to add another 1 M SF of commercial, and about another 1000 residential units.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

If that were the case, they'd be pushing _for_ Lamar/Guadalupe, as it would let them replace that section of the metrorapid before it became embarrassing (in your hypothetical situation where it isn't an improvement). Now (assuming the highland route does happen) metrorapid's performance will be there to see.

Not true. They crow about 2000 boardings/day on the Red Line as being a 'success'; their metrics are going to be so low they'll call it a success even if it attracts negative numbers of new riders compared to existing 1/101.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

The redevelopment plan for Highland Mall will add almost 1 M SF of commercial development and over 800 residential units to the existing 1.4 M SF mall being repurposed for ACC.

For comparison, both the Triangle and Mueller have around 800 multi-family units completed or currently under construction.

At build-out (2020), Mueller will have about twice as much commercial / institutional SF as Highland and about 7 times as many residential units. About half of the residential units will be multi-family, mostly in and around the town center.

With rail, Mueller may be able to add another 1 M SF of commercial, and about another 1000 residential units.

Negligible compared to existing and future housing units and commercial on Lamar/Guadalupe.

Good way to obscure facts by using sq ft instead of metrics people understand that are more directly related to density, though. For instance, the "Texas donut" buildings in the renderings at ACC look to be 3 stories. The Triangle is 4-5 stories.

Not that Highland Mall matters anyways. It's clear to anybody whose purpose is not to mislead from behind the cloak of anonymity that this is just the plan from 2010 again, i.e., go to Hancock Center in first phase, then skip over to Mueller. The "Highland Subcorridor" goes much further south than Highland Mall. Keahy's comments make it clear they're touching the zone so they can get to Mueller, not so they can go to the mall (which then makes it difficult to get to Mueller).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Not true. They crow about 2000 boardings/day on the Red Line as being a 'success'; their metrics are going to be so low they'll call it a success even if it attracts negative numbers of new riders compared to existing 1/101.

1. It's not 2000 boardings/day, it's about 3000 /day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_ridership

2. That is a success for a commuter rail. See the link above. It's certainly not in the top, but it's a respectable number for a city our size and a system that new.

3. It's a success and is basically at capacity (SRO at peak commute times). They need to add capacity to increase boardings much more.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

1. It's not 2000 boardings/day, it's about 3000 /day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_ridership

2. That is a success for a commuter rail. See the link above. It's certainly not in the top, but it's a respectable number for a city our size and a system that new.

3. It's a success and is basically at capacity (SRO at peak commute times). They need to add capacity to increase boardings much more.

No. It was a massive failure. It is not double tracked. It has low frequency. It has low capacity. It doesn't go anywhere near the right places and the route is just bad.

Especially when compared to what could have been. The line that was originally proposed, which would have been integrated into a region wide system eventually, was estimated to get upwards of 50,000 boardings a day. But now, because we have city leaders that are entirely inept, we're never going to have that because of a little thing called path dependency. It would have been better to do nothing and waited for political pressure to build the original line.

I'm not exactly happy with the new line (for which the route is only so-so), but what I'm really angry about is that we're going to be saddled with two distinct system rather than a fully integrated approach. It'd just be better for us at this point to double track the current line, and integrate any future expansions into the current system rather than start a new streetcar from scratch. M1EK is wrong about some things, but he's most often right about these things. The truth is that passengers prefer to not have to transfer. Having two lines requires transfers, and will damage overall ridership.

If I had my way, we'd just dismantle entirely the current line and start from scratch (the scratch being the originally proposed line but buried underneath central Austin so that we don't have to fuck up the current Guadalupe corridor) because the current line is a waste of the taxpayer dollar.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

No. It was a massive failure. It is not double tracked. It has low frequency. It has low capacity. It doesn't go anywhere near the right places and the route is just bad.

Especially when compared to what could have been. The line that was originally proposed, which would have been integrated into a region wide system eventually, was estimated to get upwards of 50,000 boardings a day. But now, because we have city leaders that are entirely inept, we're never going to have that because of a little thing called path dependency. It would have been better to do nothing and waited for political pressure to build the original line.

I'm not exactly happy with the new line (for which the route is only so-so), but what I'm really angry about is that we're going to be saddled with two distinct system rather than a fully integrated approach. It'd just be better for us at this point to double track the current line, and integrate any future expansions into the current system rather than start a new streetcar from scratch. M1EK is wrong about some things, but he's most often right about these things. The truth is that passengers prefer to not have to transfer. Having two lines requires transfers, and will damage overall ridership.

If I had my way, we'd just dismantle entirely the current line and start from scratch (the scratch being the originally proposed line but buried underneath central Austin so that we don't have to fuck up the current Guadalupe corridor) because the current line is a waste of the taxpayer dollar.

By the line that was originally proposed, you mean what was voted on in 2000?
It wasn't 50,000 boardings a day. The FTA estimate was 38,000 after _25 years_.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304_2915.html
Only 17,000 of which would be new.

>>but buried underneath central Austin
I suppose you have 3 or 4 _Billion_ dollars laying around you'd care to donate to the cause.

>>Having two lines requires transfers, and will damage overall ridership
The effect of transfers on ridership is overblown, according to experts.
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/...your-city.html

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

By the line that was originally proposed, you mean what was voted on in 2000?
It wasn't 50,000 boardings a day. The FTA estimate was 38,000 after _25 years_.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304_2915.html
Only 17,000 of which would be new.

>>but buried underneath central Austin
I suppose you have 3 or 4 _Billion_ dollars laying around you'd care to donate to the cause.

>>Having two lines requires transfers, and will damage overall ridership
The effect of transfers on ridership is overblown, according to experts.
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/...your-city.html

Perhaps I oversold the ridership. That number is still tenfold what we're getting with the current line.

Furthermore, did you see the link I posted on the previous page about the cost of tunneling? It's extremely cheap b/c of our soil type.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Perhaps I oversold the ridership. That number is still tenfold what we're getting with the current line.

Furthermore, did you see the link I posted on the previous page about the cost of tunneling? It's extremely cheap b/c of our soil type.

Yes, it's tenfold. It also would have cost tenfold.
The red line is successful for what it is. It's a simple, cheap, commuter line.

Yes, it would have been great if the 2000 plan would have passed. But there just wasn't enough political will for it. And I'm not sure there is enough now, though I'll be pleasantly surprised if a line (any line, Mueller, Highland, Lamar, ERC, whatever) passes.

As for the tunneling, you link a completely unsourced and unsubstantiated rumor. That claims to be based on the Waller tunnel, which just so happened to cost over 100-million for a mile. If tunneling in Austin is so cheap, 10 times cheaper, why wasn't the waller tunnel cheap?

[austlar1]

When talking about Highland Mall as a site of potential development, I think it is wise to consider the entire area in the immediate vicinity of Highland Mall including the area along Airport to the south of the mall on the other side of 290/2222 and also the area just past Highland Mall going towards Lamar on Airport. Just look at a good aerial map of the area. It contains so much well located and developable real estate. I fully expect most of these parcels to be recycled and redeveloped into much denser commercial and residential development over the next two decades assuming Austin continues to grow and prosper. It was not too long ago the the area around Lamar and W 6th St. consisted mostly of used car lots and even vacant lots. That was just 10 years or so ago. Current development plans for Highland Mall are just a small portion of what I expect to see built there in the years ahead. It is the only large area in Central Austin with that kind of development potential. Real estate interests are well aware of this potential. I am not saying that the route being discussed here is better than a Lamar or Guadalupe route, but I am glad that additional rail connectivity in the Highland Mall area is being seriously considered.

PS- Of course a rail tunnel through campus and downtown is the obvious solution to so many problems with regards to linking up a rail system in Austin. Unfortunately nobody seems to wants even to have a discussion about possible ways to pay for such a marvelous and much needed project. I think it would be the wisest long term investment that Austin could make. No pain, no gain.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

And oh yeah, back to the discussion about traffic lights on highways, here's another reason not to have them.

Fiery crash kills two people on SH 71

That happened at the intersection of SH-71 and SH-130 where there is a traffic light. We've been through there at night, late, sometimes at 3 in the morning coming home from my sister's, and have seen people run the light at that intersection. It doesn't surprise me one bit that this happened there.

Ok, so one of those vehicles rear ended the other, but the reason is the same since the first vehicle was stopped at the light. Those lights start to flash at midnight, and you have to treat the intersection like a 4 way stop with stop signs. That's what the driver in the first vehicle was doing when the 2nd one rear ended them.

[jtown,man]

I keep hearing on here how bad the Red rail line is...because of its low frequencies, hours of operation etc etc

I agree. The line could be so much damn better. With that said, I think its short-comings prove how successful it actually is with commuters. This is totally subjective, but I take the train from Lake Line about once a month(Fridays) and I drive by the Howard Station just about every other day. Both of these train stations have near-full parking lots at all times. In fact, at Lake Line on the weekend people park illegally.

This is not to say I think the line is great and is working perfect. What I am saying is that even with its obvious short-comings, people are riding it. Which is GREAT, because we know with improved service, and more options within the city, this line can garner even more riders and become quite a large(relatively speaking) part of the Austin transportation system.

[smith_atx]

Obviously special circumstances, but it was packed this Saturday for F1 stuff. They were telling people at the downtown station to plan ahead because some people missed the last Friday night train because it was maxed out.

[M1EK]

Once again it doesn't matter how much redevelopment is occurring in/near Highland Mall; the "Highland Subcorridor" goes all the way past Hancock, and Kyle Keahy made it very clear to those who were listening that the intend of that subcorridor was to double-count I-35 traffic and to get to the front door of Mueller (i.e. they're NOT going past Hancock Center).

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Once again it doesn't matter how much redevelopment is occurring in/near Highland Mall; the "Highland Subcorridor" goes all the way past Hancock, and Kyle Keahy made it very clear to those who were listening that the intend of that subcorridor was to double-count I-35 traffic and to get to the front door of Mueller (i.e. they're NOT going past Hancock Center).

In other words it sucks.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Once again it doesn't matter how much redevelopment is occurring in/near Highland Mall; the "Highland Subcorridor" goes all the way past Hancock, and Kyle Keahy made it very clear to those who were listening that the intend of that subcorridor was to double-count I-35 traffic and to get to the front door of Mueller (i.e. they're NOT going past Hancock Center).

Can you provide a quote for that?

They'll have to propose an initial line first, before any extensions to Mueller. You're claiming the initial line they propose will be 3 miles and stop at Hancock?

[tildahat]

One factor that gets underrated here in the decision making process is the fact that UT wants the san jac alignment instead of guadalupe. UT is kind of an important actor in all this. If I could dictate where the first line went it would be G/L, but I think G/L supporters under rate the obstacles of going against UT.

I'm not convinced the relevant NAs would actually support a G/L line like they should. I find that inexplicable, but nonetheless expect it.

Anyway, I actually agree with UT on this - for non-undergrad trips to UT the proposed route is as good or better than Guadalupe: Blanton/ATT conference center/LBJ/professional grad schools/science museum and in the future the med school complex. Hopefully UT will allocated reserved guideway through campus, as well. I also think West Campus is overrated by many G/L supporters: their main trips are east/west to campus.

But the main thing I think all rail supporters need to decide is whether this is good enough to support, or whether we want to risk killing it and waiting another 14 years for a chance. For me the answer is clear: support. Who knows how long it will be until another chance? I think this is a decent if not the ideal choice. And there's still no guarantee that in 2030 we would get a vote on G/L.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by tildahat

Anyway, I actually agree with UT on this - for non-undergrad trips to UT the proposed route is as good or better than Guadalupe: Blanton/ATT conference center/LBJ/professional grad schools/science museum and in the future the med school complex.

And in the further future, potentially continuing along the red-line rail (not transferring but a continuation of the line) from Highland to Pickle.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Can you provide a quote for that?

They'll have to propose an initial line first, before any extensions to Mueller. You're claiming the initial line they propose will be 3 miles and stop at Hancock?

No; not taking homework today, far too busy. I was at the meeting; I was the first speaker in citizen communication; and others (@juliamontgomery for one, who's actually ON the CCAG) pointed out what Keahy said when he said it.

Yes, I (and many others) believe they're going back to the plan of record as of right-before-Project-Connect; which was 3 miles and stop at Hancock. Keahy as much as promised it.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by tildahat

One factor that gets underrated here in the decision making process is the fact that UT wants the san jac alignment instead of guadalupe. UT is kind of an important actor in all this. If I could dictate where the first line went it would be G/L, but I think G/L supporters under rate the obstacles of going against UT.

I'm not convinced the relevant NAs would actually support a G/L line like they should. I find that inexplicable, but nonetheless expect it.

Anyway, I actually agree with UT on this - for non-undergrad trips to UT the proposed route is as good or better than Guadalupe: Blanton/ATT conference center/LBJ/professional grad schools/science museum and in the future the med school complex. Hopefully UT will allocated reserved guideway through campus, as well. I also think West Campus is overrated by many G/L supporters: their main trips are east/west to campus.

But the main thing I think all rail supporters need to decide is whether this is good enough to support, or whether we want to risk killing it and waiting another 14 years for a chance. For me the answer is clear: support. Who knows how long it will be until another chance? I think this is a decent if not the ideal choice. And there's still no guarantee that in 2030 we would get a vote on G/L.

The relevant NAs have all come out in support of the G/L route (including, ironically enough, the Highland NA).

The problem with this route is ridership will be crap; which means we won't get a chance to vote on G/L until 2050.