AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...ustin-m/np82m/

Maybe this will lighten up this thread for a minute......mmmmmm, probably not.

Hmmm, that map missed one neighborhood around the capitol, that should be named "zone of corrupt lawyers and thieves". Hee-haw!

We're getting slightly off topic, and we're far too early for April Fools.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...ustin-m/np82m/

Maybe this will lighten up this thread for a minute......mmmmmm, probably not.

I'm curious what Novacek thinks of all of this. It seems like it was taken a little out of context?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

I'm curious what Novacek thinks of all of this. It seems like it was taken a little out of context?

I imagine I think what most on this thread think:

1. I appreciate an attempt at levity in what was probably an otherwise dry presentation. Which simultaneously:

2. Communicated the quite accurate observation that there's many, many diverse groups and stakeholders that use Lamar Blvd on a daily basis. But overall:

3. It's a god-awful stupid thing to do at work.


Whoever did it learned their lesson, but shouldn't get fired over it.



Now, if you were attempting to get me back on that dead horse
Lamar being a major N/S arterial, which so many diverse groups using it (some of which will never use transit) just reinforces the difficulty with trying to add rail to it. That's a _lot_ of different groups to vote against taking half the lanes from it. Or taking lanes off the Lamar bridge.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I imagine I think what most on this thread think:

1. I appreciate an attempt at levity in what was probably an otherwise dry presentation. Which simultaneously:

2. Communicated the quite accurate observation that there's many, many diverse groups and stakeholders that use Lamar Blvd on a daily basis. But overall:

3. It's a god-awful stupid thing to do at work.


Whoever did it learned their lesson, but shouldn't get fired over it.



Now, if you were attempting to get me back on that dead horse
Lamar being a major N/S arterial, which so many diverse groups using it (some of which will never use transit) just reinforces the difficulty with trying to add rail to it. That's a _lot_ of different groups to vote against taking half the lanes from it. Or taking lanes off the Lamar bridge.

How do you know he learned his lesson?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

How do you know he learned his lesson?

Well, as I assume the CoA hires people with _at least_ a 75 IQ, I assume being put on administrative leave is enough for him/her to get the message.

[urbancore]

from the Austin Monitor today;

"Cap Metro board greenlights central corridor study
Project Connect is returning to Central Austin.

The Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority board of directors unanimously approved on Monday a contract with the engineering firm AECOM to guide a new study of transportation in the urban core dubbed the Central Corridor Comprehensive Transit Analysis, or CCCTA. The eight-member board voted 7-0 on the measure, after Vice Chair Beverly Silas recused herself.

The $3 million, 30-month study is Project Connect’s first foray back into the central city after voters overwhelmingly rejected the $1 billion roads-and-rail bond known as Proposition 1 in November 2014.

Since then, Project Connect – a partnership between Cap Metro, the city of Austin and Lone Star Rail – has largely kept a low profile. Its once-prolific Twitter account has been silent for more than a year.

Behind the scenes, however, Cap Metro has been laying the groundwork for the CCCTA. In August, the agency began shopping for consultants to assist in the study. Staff ultimately recommended that AECOM win the bid, and the board’s Operations, Planning and Safety Committee endorsed that pick earlier this month.

Although set on Monday’s agenda for approval by consent, Board Chair Wade Cooper pulled the item for discussion and asked Javier Arguello, director of long-range planning, to provide more details about the study and the arrangement with AECOM.

Arguello explained that the primary goal of the CCCTA is to “develop pragmatic transit solutions for a multimodal transit system that improves travel into and within downtown Austin.”

Last week, Cap Metro CEO Linda Watson told the Austin Monitor that the CCCTA won’t simply be a redundant version of the central core study that was implemented ahead of Prop 1. “There’s a lot of data available from that report that can be used,” Watson said. “But there’s also new data that needs to be generated. That first study identified several major travel shed areas, and we will … continue to fine-tune and look a little more in-depth at those and develop more precise numbers and data.”

On Monday, Arguello explained that the CCCTA will examine the two MetroRapid bus lines that deployed in 2014 as well as MetroRail. It will also focus on examining funding options for new services. Finally, Arguello explained that the CCCTA will involve a “hefty” public involvement plan. This last point promises to draw close scrutiny from critics of the buildup to Prop 1 who charged that Project Connect ignored any input from public meetings in favor of predetermined outcomes.

Indeed, City Council Member and Cap Metro Board Member Ann Kitchen insisted that the board have an opportunity to be updated on the development of the new public involvement plan. She and Cooper agreed that staff should provide monthly briefs to the board on the progress of the plan.

Before the board even took up the issue, one critic in the audience slammed the notion of yet another study. Dave Dobbs of the Texas Association for Public Transportation said there have been 10 publicly funded studies along a similar vein conducted in Central Austin in just over 30 years.

“Since 1984, we’ve spent at least 20 million taxpayer dollars for high-capacity transit corridor studies, and this figure does not figure for inflation,” Dobbs explained. “As an Austin resident of 46 years, 37 of which I have devoted intensely to public transit, I can assure you, contrary to what you may have heard, that Austinites are ready for an intelligent urban rail proposal on the ballot as soon as possible.”

Dobbs was referring to a recent recommendation by the city’s Urban Transportation Commission that Council consider putting another rail referendum before voters this November. He also seemed to be responding to Watson’s recent statement to the Monitor that the community is not yet ready for light rail transit.

While Dobbs’ remarks went unchallenged by the board, Cooper did sum up his own personal feelings on the CCCTA just before the vote. He asserted that it is one of the “most important” projects within the community before concluding, “Having been around transit for a pretty good while – more as a bystander, I suppose – to me there’s no greater need in the city of Austin than for us to figure out how transit intersects with downtown.”






I still believe they will never have the votes to pass expensive rail that serves only a few. The ONLY way this will ever work, is if another MAJOR source of funding is found.

[Novacek]

Looks like 183/I35 ramps are getting funding.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...rojects/nqDRT/

Between this and the already in place 71/183 projects, the inner eastern bypass loop of I35 should be basically in place.

[nixcity]

Quit it with this nonsense.

1) The 1 corridor saw a large _increase_ of service with the introduction of the metrorapid.

No time to respond to all I've missed, should have time next week to clear up that horse that you claim has been beaten to death. That comment still proves to be untrue, and thanks to a link you provided (which I had already seen) my assumptions were correct. The corridor has STILL not gotten back to the old ridership numbers. I will try to show even better how Capmetro has been screwing us over for a long time, which unfortunately is not hard to do. This incompetence in city planning over the decades has led us to the mess we are in now. Here is the link posted again. Will probably reference it again later.
http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/01/29617/
Here is the info FROM THE BOSS of Capmetro.
"While she declared both the 801 and 803 MetroRapid routes to be successes, she also acknowledged that ridership numbers on the 801 as well as the local 1 still lag behind the combined ridership of the express 101 and the higher-frequency 1 that served the route two years ago."
oops
If a business operated like this than they would be in bankruptcy. Another quick link showing how they keep spending more and getting either worse or equal ridership.

https://jacedeloney.files.wordpress....ding-index.png
And the whole article.
https://jacedeloney.wordpress.com/20...tinue-in-2014/

And another one just for fun.
http://www.aura-atx.org/should_we_ha...cused_capmetro

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

That comment still proves to be untrue, and thanks to a link you provided (which I had already seen) my assumptions were correct. The corridor has STILL not gotten back to the old ridership numbers.

Who's talking ridership? We were talking about service levels.

Originally Posted by nixcity

she also acknowledged that ridership numbers on the 801 as well as the local 1 still lag behind the combined ridership of the express 101 and the higher-frequency 1 that served the route two years ago."
oops

Except those aren't the comparisons. The 1L, the 1M, and the 101 were replaced by the 1, the 801, the 275 and the 201.

Originally Posted by nixcity

Another quick link showing how they keep spending more and getting either worse or equal ridership.

Why would you expect anything different, given:

Austin's decreasing density.
Austin's gentrification, which tends to replace transit-dependent populations with less-transit-dependent populations.
UNO, which replaced a bunch of student bus trips with bike/walking.
The Sunset commission forcing CapMetro to raise prices, at the cost of ridership.

[nixcity]

Who's talking ridership? We were talking about service levels.

In what world does having less people use public transportation in a corridor lead to better services??? Just because its a more expensive "fancy" bus??

Except those aren't the comparisons. The 1L, the 1M, and the 101 were replaced by the 1, the 801, the 275 and the 201.

Those are the numbers she used, not me, and she did that because those are the routes that best mirror the old HEAVILY USED routes. Or are you saying your boss doesn't know what she is talking about???

Why would you expect anything different, given:

Austin's decreasing density.
Austin's gentrification, which tends to replace transit-dependent populations with less-transit-dependent populations.
UNO, which replaced a bunch of student bus trips with bike/walking.
The Sunset commission forcing CapMetro to raise prices, at the cost of ridership.

Many of those same issues are happening in other cities yet their ridership has done well, that was the whole point of that article.
1) Austin's density has remained about the same since at least the 1980s, around the mid 2,000's. It actually went up the last 3 years. Would have been more if it wasn't for so much annexation and the poor city planning I already alluded to.

https://www.lawnstarter.com/blog/aus...n-city-limits/

2) What, you don't think gentrification is happening in other cities????? Many cities that saw growth in ridership has had this happen. Transit is supposed to adjust to the population.

3)UNO happened a long time ago and all that time it built up West Campus and helped to fill those buses at unprecedented levels. You make it sound like its some new thing, post Metrobus.

4)A lot of cities have had to raise prices, that does not change the fact that Capmetro spends more and more each year and yet gets lower or same ridership. If that is good enough for you ok, but for most tax payers it is not!!!!

I used to wonder if you just live in your mom's basement and spend all your time online but now I'm starting to think you are a Capmetro employee. I've told you who I am, its time to tell us who you are.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

In what world does having less people use public transportation in a corridor lead to better services??? .

Having more buses running on a corridor per day, and per hour, means a higher service level. Full stop.

Originally Posted by nixcity

Those are the numbers she used, not me, and she did that because those are the routes that best mirror the old HEAVILY USED routes. Or are you saying your boss doesn't know what she is talking about???
.

We don't know what numbers she used, or what comparison she made, BECAUSE THERE'S NO FREAKING QUOTE

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Many of those same issues are happening in other cities yet their ridership has done well, that was the whole point of that article.

That article compared against exactly _1_ other transit system, King County. Which, being a county, hasn't seen geographic changes or decreases in density.


Austin, on the other hand, has seen population growth in the outer suburbs (such as Leander and unincorporated travis county) greatly outpacing any population growth in CoA proper. That additional suburban population is _much_ more expensive to serve.

Originally Posted by nixcity

3)UNO happened a long time ago and all that time it built up West Campus and helped to fill those buses at unprecedented levels. You make it sound like its some new thing, post Metrobus.
.

It didn't happen a long time ago. It happened post-2000, at the very point of the flatline you were referring to.

It doesn't fill buses. All those students that used to ride buses to campus now can walk there instead.

Which overall is a good thing, but it doesn't improve ridership.

Originally Posted by nixcity

I used to wonder if you just live in your mom's basement

How about you confine yourself to facts instead of making personal attacks. That way I can disprove all the false claims you make.

Originally Posted by nixcity

but now I'm starting to think you are a Capmetro employee.

Nope. Another absolutely false claim. You're really absolutely no good at this.

Originally Posted by nixcity

I've told you who I am, its time to tell us who you are.

I'm just a private Austin citizen. An engineer by education, who wants the best for his city and hates to see any progress inhibited by the absolute ignorance of others.

[lzppjb]

Hyperloop

http://kxan.com/2016/01/25/ut-austin...r-competition/

• Video Link

[nixcity]

Having more buses running on a corridor per day, and per hour, means a higher service level. Full stop.

If there are more buses running on that corridor then why is ridership down?? Was the director of Capmetro wrong? Just because it wasn't a direct quote doesn't mean it wasn't what she said, the Monitor is usually the most accurate of local news sources. Or are you saying Caleb Pritchard intentionally misconstrued her words?

[nixcity]

That article compared against exactly _1_ other transit system, King County. Which, being a county, hasn't seen geographic changes or decreases in density.


Austin, on the other hand, has seen population growth in the outer suburbs (such as Leander and unincorporated travis county) greatly outpacing any population growth in CoA proper. That additional suburban population is _much_ more expensive to serve.

That is because the link to the Aura article isn't working which had many other cities. These issues like suburbs growing is happening (and has been for decades) in most American cities. Here is a quick list of cities that are growing and a link to an article that shows overall bus ridership is down across the US but that when agencies spend more (like Capmetro) their ridership numbers actually go up!! Why isn't that happening here when it is in so many other places??
"The following cities showed the highest large bus ridership increases in 2014: Baltimore, MD (6.8%); Portland, OR (5.3%); Oakland, CA (4.2%); San Francisco, CA (3.9%); Columbus, OH (3.0%); Atlanta, GA (2.8%); San Diego, CA (2.4%); and Seattle, WA-King County DOT (2.0%)."
Source: http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pres...ridership.aspx
http://humantransit.org/2015/06/pity...nbinder-b.html

It didn't happen a long time ago. It happened post-2000, at the very point of the flatline you were referring to.

The DECREASE not flat line I have been talking about happened exactly when they switched service to the "BRT" as the director of Capmetro pointed out, 14 years AFTER UNO went into effect.

It doesn't fill buses. All those students that used to ride buses to campus now can walk there instead.

But they don't just go to class, they have other lives as well. That is why when all the midrises started becoming highrises (UNO) the ridership was higher than it was post "BRT".

It doesn't fill buses. All those students that used to ride buses to campus now can walk there instead.

Which overall is a good thing, but it doesn't improve ridership.

The only place the buses ARE consistently (even still after the "BRT" debacle) full for long stretches is......yes G/L.

hates to see any progress inhibited by the absolute ignorance of others.

Nice, absolute ignorance, you have yet to disprove anything that really matters yet make a personal attack just a few lines after calling me out for making one....hmmmm.

You hate to see progress inhibited yet you have spent countless hours backing the 2014 plan that was riddled with problems and failed massively at the polls and Capmetro which spends more and gets less for its citizens. Yet still you have not even offered up what you think would be best for the city. I really doubt anyone reads our back and forth any more so just offer up a plan so we can garner momentum to help our fine city get out of the mess it finds itself in.

Between this and the already in place 71/183 projects, the inner eastern bypass loop of I35 should be basically in place

Has the 183 East part already been approved and ready to move forward?? Is it still going to be tolled and how will they be crossing the river? This has real potential for getting some cars and hopefully semis off of I35.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

If there are more buses running on that corridor then why is ridership down??

Because they simultaneously raised prices. Significantly.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

The DECREASE not flat line I have been talking about happened exactly when they switched service to the "BRT" as the director of Capmetro pointed out, 14 years AFTER UNO went into effect.

If we're talking about _just_ metrorapid and _just_ those routes, why the hell are you linking to articles and graphs discussing whole system ridership.

Get your story straight.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Has the 183 East part already been approved and ready to move forward??

Okay, let's both just stop beating the dead horse, and discuss this.


The contract for 183 South/Bergstrom expressway has already been awarded.

http://communityimpact.com/austin/tr...-road-project/


Yes, it's tolled (well, mostly). I think most sections are getting 1 new free lane (with signals) each way (where it was previously just 2x2). Then 3x3 tolled lanes. It's really a massive project.
Including a new bridge over the river. I think (one of?) the existing bridges is remaining as pedestrian/bike only.

http://www.183south.com/project-overview/overview/

[nixcity]

The last thing I want to post is the direct comparison of the 2014 line and the one being proposed by Austin CDC and others for this year. Keep in mind that these are the two main metrics that the feds look at when deciding whether to match funds.

2016 MobilityATX/Civic Analytics/CACDC alignment
miles 14.1
population 136,450
population per linear mile 9,677
jobs 171,706
jobs per mile 12,177

Project Connect's 2014 alignment
miles 9.6
population 46,151
population per linear mile 4,807
jobs 96,944
jobs per linear mile 10,098

This uses 2010 census numbers since that is the most accurate and what Project Connect had to use to present to the feds. The numbers I used before were based on 2030 projections which were pulled from an inaccurate Chronicle article. You can even see here in one of their presentations Project Connect used the 2010 numbers yet called them 2030 projections.
https://blu181.mail.live.com/mail/Vi...h=0&n=99101595

The population numbers are more than double for the 2016 idea. These numbers reflect higher numbers than even Minneapolis had for their first line which is now over 31,000 per weekday.

[nixcity]

Because they simultaneously raised prices. Significantly.

Doesn't prove a causal relationship and also doesn't show whether or not other cities have done the same.

If we're talking about _just_ metrorapid and _just_ those routes, why the hell are you linking to articles and graphs discussing whole system ridership.

Because I think Capmetro has done a bad job period

Gotta go so no time to read, when is 183 expansion supposed to break ground?