AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by ohhey

Why is it selfish to vote against something I think will be ineffective? I fully support good urban rail projects, but I don't think we have good leaders behind this proposal, and I think this plan will have low ridership. Building this route could potentially do more harm than good. If rail is right for Austin, a new plan will materialize sooner than you might think.

I voted "no" mostly for the reasons summarized above. I kept hearing the argument that we have to have rail, so a bad rail plan is better than none at all. Or the other argument that says we must approve this or else we won't get another chance for a decade. I don't buy either of these statements. A bad plan is worse than no plan. This little fragment of a light rail system will need many more votes for future bond issues in order to branch out and service the broader community. If it's done poorly and appears to be ineffective then future projects are more likely to be voted down. Approval of this bond issue could hurt future bond issues. Look at the ridiculous Red Line, its mere existence probably cuts into support for rail because it is such an expensive debacle that erodes trust in Cap Metro and the ability of light rail to solve transportation problems.

On the other hand, I don't agree about the need to service UT students. They have free bus lines that run at frequent intervals, and they're not apt to be commuting to many places served by rail. Of course many thousands commute to UT for work, so the main campus is a major commute destination, as are many nearby properties such as the future med school and capitol complex. The current proposal does a good job of providing access to those destinations, but it does so from areas that are not major sources of commuters to those jobs.

But my main overall objection to prop 1 is that I think it's an expensive commitment to a piecemeal half-hearted public transit strategy and is far too small and timid. I'm holding out for something big --- like going aboveground or underground. There isn't space here on the surface of Planet Austin to accommodate all the traffic. We need to bury 35, put in a subway or tram system, do something highly innovative that will be adaptable to a population that will certainly double and may even triple within this century. Rinky-dink little Disney light rail cars aren't gonna cut it when we join the ranks of major global cities. We need futuristic solutions that are designed to handle at least double our present population, with an infrastructure that is scalable upward from there.

[ATXboom]

^ I agree with this POV.

We need rail that isn't tied up in traffic to generate a rider value proposition. The culture here will never support the removal of a car lane for rail. We have to go above or below which will cost a lot. I also think all the lines need to be reasonably defined to get support for any single line. That way people can see who will be served at some point. It's time to go big or don't go at all.

[lzppjb]

Agree with the 2 posts above me. Taking away a lane for rail will likely never be widely supported.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

And negatives: doesn't include the airport (coming later),

That's a positive, not a negative. No rail system started with an airport line (for instance, Dallas is only now extending to it, after 30 years), it just doesn't make sense to. It's expensive and doesn't produce ridership.

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

doesn't include West Campus,

How many students, living in West Campus, commute downtown during rush hour? Student trips are east/west into campus.

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

routed through 1+ miles of untaxable UT land,

Instead think of it as land not held hostage by neighborhood associations which can actually be developed densely.

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

and doesn't take advantage of existing investments in MetroRail.

Huh? You man other than connecting to it twice?

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

The existing MetroRail could be realigned to include the domain, more of Highland mall plus Hancock OR Mueller.

No it can't, not without tearing out a bunch of roads and infrastructure. The red line doesn't have that kind of turning radius, to where it could just jog left into the domain.

[nixcity]

My vote for the bond will be NO. I will try to give a somewhat coherent explination why but I'm sure I will forget some of my reasons. While not as pathetic as the red line, this line will cost us so much not just in terms of taxes but in terms of losses of other services. Bus routes will be cut to pay for riders even if you use CapMetro's best projected numbers. The price per ridership also hurts because it will make it a virtually impossible sell to voters to expand a system that does so little to aleviate traffic. This route could make sense as a second or third line expansion.
Probably my biggest complaint about this currently is the $400 million connected to roads. If we are going to go for such a big pricetag of one billion then ALL OF IT SHOULD BE FOR RAIL. If federal funds match at 50% than we could be getting a 2 billion rail line for the same price to taxpayers. That would allow for a near perfect plan, going underground at many segments to align more closely to the #1 bus route. We in no way should be paying $400 million for something the state and feds should be ponying up for. The city has let the state skip us by one too many times when it comes to funding roads, its time our city leaders fight for our deserved cut of the small state transportation pie. How do all of the other major cities get so much paid for when we get so little???
Everyone knows the line should take advantage of existing density and the north alignment (I am fine with the Riverside corridor for the most part and where/how it crosses the river) should be on G/L where it belongs first. People say that most students are going east/west which is certainly true but somebody sure was filling up the #1. (I can't find a link to show this is the busiest bus route in the city but we know it is) Why would we risk putting a line somewhere that has not been used for mass transit when we have a guarantee at a place that warrants mass transit now?!
Also, the process was a joke, they had their minds made up from the beginning and paid lipservice to those opposing. The people behind the decision stand to gain a lot from this but the city as a whole does not, can you say boondoggle? Some say that if we miss this opportunity that we will not get another chance for a long time. I disagree, the money will still be there if we do another vote and there is a large contingency of people ready and willing to work on the G/L alignment (some have already been doing so for decades! bc the demand has been there that long) and with $2 billion to spend we could really do it right.
BTW, have they even said which vehicles they plan on using???
If this does pass I truly hope they find a few more places to add needed density to make it work, ACC's current plans are not enough (the med school, in 10-15 years surely IS) to justify this price tag, I say all these things knowing that I may actually be able to use the line we are voting for but in looking at what is best for the city it is getting a solid cost effective line that then leads to others being built in the future.

[KevinFromTexas]

I voted for it, but I'm not 100% behind the idea. I know it won't pass anyway. i basically voted for it to show support for rail in some form at least.

[jngreenlee]

Just a wacky perspective on mass transit for a moment: What if we passed a bond for $1BN, spent $400MM on roads, and $600MM on Smart cars?

At a low-end invoice price of $11,616 [1], $600MM buys 51,652 SmartCars. There are 276,611 households in Austin [2], so we can't give one to each HH. Probably a expanded vehicle-sharing program would be best. Using car2go as a model, which has 300 cars in use [3], this could have a pretty expansive service map.

Austin has 7,498 lane-miles of road under city ownership [4]. Let's add 50% for state/federal to be safe: 11,247. That's close to 60MM ft of lanes.

A Smart FourTwo is 95 inches long [4]. A Chevy Traverse is 205 inches long [5]. I'm going to be a little sloppy and assume a Traverse represents an average car, and that two FourTwos equal one average car in length. I'll make up for it by assuming that each FourTwo only replaces one car per day, when really it might replace many.

If this system got people to leave their larger cars at home, this <could> represent a decrease in peak demand of 51562 * 95 in * 1 ft / 12 in = 408199 ft of lanes, or 0.6% reduction in lane-ft needed daily.

Unfortunately that doesn't sound worth the property tax increase. Was my math/logic solid? Is there a way to describe Prop 1 (which I oppose) from a similar perspective? Are there any sort of cumulative AADT numbers for the Austin commuting network that could be better leveraged?

[1] USnews 2013 Smart Fortwo Review
[2] Austin Demographics
[3] car2go gets Austin going
[4]Portland street fee: Austin, where roads rule, is the only other Portland-sized city doing it
[5] Smart FourTwo
[6] Chevrolet Traverse

[lzppjb]

Amen, nixcity!

[lzppjb]

Rail is cool in theory. But dedicated bus roadways can be as efficient for less money.

[ATXboom]

Austin needs other things than this rail line. This line if approved may prevent any other rail line from coming to fruition. It will eliminate a few bus lines to cover the costs of operation.

Austin needs more density:
It needs more density to support rail. We could support rail up L/GL replacing the 1 bus line. It would fair as well as the better lines in Dallas or Houston. I'd like to see coding be part of any transit planning.

Rail needs dedicated right of way:
If Austin wants to drive demand for rail then have it get people to their destinations faster than a car. Only way to do this is dedicated ROW. The problem is there is no way the culture here allows the exchange of a car lane for a rail lane. That means we need elevated ROW or below grade... both expensive. I actually think residents are ok to go big on $ if the plan is solid.

People want to know how rail will impact them:
Stop promising traffic relief... the cities with the best mass transit have terrible traffic. All transit did was increase total commuting capacity over any increment of time. This needs to be communicated coherently. Next... the system needs to be designed. Meaning all lines can be roughed out in advance and given a development priority. That way the community will know if, how and when they might be served... then they are deciding on a transit system... not a line.

These guys are all pro rail/transit... but doing it right: http://aura-atx.org/

[nixcity]

Basically I think we are asking Austinites to half ass it yet again, in this case I don't think we can afford to do it wrong, it's too late in the game for that. It's just a damn shame they couldn't get it right this time when the writing was on the wall in bright neon all along.
Just read ATXbooms's post, thanks for making it clearer, I hope all here who haven't voted yet read it.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

It will eliminate a few bus lines to cover the costs of operation.

No, it won't. No factual basis for this claim has _ever_ been presented.

The funding and operating plan requires no cutting of any (non-redundant) bus lines.

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Rail needs dedicated right of way

And the proposed plan is mostly dedicated right of way. Those places where it isn't, is where there is sufficient capacity for it to not be an issue.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by jngreenlee

Just a wacky perspective on mass transit for a moment: What if we passed a bond for $1BN, spent $400MM on roads, and $600MM on Smart cars?

At a low-end invoice price of $11,616 [1], $600MM buys 51,652 SmartCars. There are 276,611 households in Austin [2], so we can't give one to each HH. Probably a expanded vehicle-sharing program would be best. Using car2go as a model, which has 300 cars in use [3], this could have a pretty expansive service map.

Austin has 7,498 lane-miles of road under city ownership [4]. Let's add 50% for state/federal to be safe: 11,247. That's close to 60MM ft of lanes.

A Smart FourTwo is 95 inches long [4]. A Chevy Traverse is 205 inches long [5]. I'm going to be a little sloppy and assume a Traverse represents an average car, and that two FourTwos equal one average car in length. I'll make up for it by assuming that each FourTwo only replaces one car per day, when really it might replace many.

If this system got people to leave their larger cars at home, this <could> represent a decrease in peak demand of 51562 * 95 in * 1 ft / 12 in = 408199 ft of lanes, or 0.6% reduction in lane-ft needed daily.

Unfortunately that doesn't sound worth the property tax increase. Was my math/logic solid? Is there a way to describe Prop 1 (which I oppose) from a similar perspective? Are there any sort of cumulative AADT numbers for the Austin commuting network that could be better leveraged?

[1] USnews 2013 Smart Fortwo Review
[2] Austin Demographics
[3] car2go gets Austin going
[4]Portland street fee: Austin, where roads rule, is the only other Portland-sized city doing it
[5] Smart FourTwo
[6] Chevrolet Traverse

Two _very_ big problems with this.

1. You don't gain any capacity, as the capacity used by the smart car (and any vehicle) mostly consists of the required following distance, not the length.

2. You've spent all this money, and then it's all gone after 7 years or so (the useful life of the cars). Unlike the rail, with a useful life of 40-50 years or more.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Why would we risk putting a line somewhere that has not been used for mass transit

Many of the stops along the proposed line are some of the currently highest-used in the system.

[nixcity]

^Are you referring to some of the stops north of MLK??
And do you have a link? I can't seem to find those numbers.

No, it won't. No factual basis for this claim has _ever_ been presented.

Then where will they get the money to cover the operations? There is some shortfall even on really well used lines, they will have to take that money from somewhere, just like they did with the red line.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

^Are you referring to some of the stops north of MLK??
And do you have a link? I can't seem to find those numbers.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne....html?page=all

https://www.google.com/fusiontables/...pixZ#rows:id=1

In particular, some of the stops along and just off San Jacinto through campus are some of the highest in the system. There's also the smaller red dots all along riverside and on red river.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Then where will they get the money to cover the operations?

They've presented their funding plan, it doesn't require cutting non-redundant bus service (I'll see if I can find a link). Now, cutting redundant bus service (along that same line) I hope everyone is okay with.

My guess is a lot of the operations is covered with the ~10M or so a year that CapMetro is no longer going to have to be setting aside for their operating reserve or paying back to the city for the quarter cent rebate.

Originally Posted by nixcity

they will have to take that money from somewhere, just like they did with the red line.

That's not what happened with the red line. They cut redundant service there as well. Overall, the red line probably saved a lot of bus service (due to saving the quarter cent of tax).

[jngreenlee]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Two _very_ big problems with this.

1. You don't gain any capacity, as the capacity used by the smart car (and any vehicle) mostly consists of the required following distance, not the length.

2. You've spent all this money, and then it's all gone after 7 years or so (the useful life of the cars). Unlike the rail, with a useful life of 40-50 years or more.

Admittedly this is just for fun, but it made me wonder what the useful life of passenger rolling stock is. Any idea?

[ATXboom]

@juliogatx has documented the future budget constrains that prevent transit system expansion... It's all a mute point as Prop 1 has no chance at passing.

I'm looking forward to what the new council can put together as I desp want rail where there is ridership (not the measly passenger total per day for this line... not worthy of rail).

I imagine almost everyone on this forum is pro transit/rail... but almost everyone is against it. Not a good sign.

I've seen how these convos go so I'll bow out till late next week. Then we can move on to the next proposal.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

@juliogatx has documented the future budget constrains that prevent transit system expansion

I've read his analysis, it has no factual basis.

He takes the operations cost of the rail and then applies that to buses, assuming that you can get additional bus riders for a subsidy of 0.88(!) to 1.90 per.

The huge problem with that, that's cheaper than _any_ existing bus line. From Julio's own data (https://keepaustinwonky.files.wordpr...dle_rates.xlsx).
Somehow, there's some magic bus lines out there somewhere (that CapMetro isn't already running for some reason) that are an order of magnitude better than the lesser performing routes that are currently being run.

An analysis at least _attempting_ to appear unbiased would at least start with the average CapMetro per-boarding subsidy. More realistically, it would approach that of lesser-performing current routes (as the most performing routes are already running, all the low hanging fruit has been harvested).
But his analysis doesn't do that. It's simply not accurate or reliable.