AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[M1EK]

Well, Guadalupe isn't being pursued - even the city isn't talking about running trains there - which, again, proves what I said about commuter rail precluding light rail on the 2000 route (not enough potential riders to justify taking away a traffic lane on Guadalupe).

I still have no idea whether they plan on running in mixed traffic on San Antonio or whether the train would have its own lane there, BTW.

For Brack, there's a lot of room near the UP tracks - we talked about streetcar in that area way back in the late 1990s in the OWANA plan. Running in-street on 5th/6th would be cool in terms of destinations, but again, if you can't get the lane, it's worse than buses - not better. Building trains that are worse than buses is a fundamentally stupid idea.

[wwmiv]

I should have made myself clearer. Yes, I know that the city isn't pursuing Guadalupe and is pursuing San Antonio. I was talking in terms of the argument between you and BlueEyes.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I should have made myself clearer. Yes, I know that the city isn't pursuing Guadalupe and is pursuing San Antonio. I was talking in terms of the argument between you and BlueEyes.

Well, it's complicated; in one thread I'm comparing the existing #101 limited and #1 local bus from Crestview to UT against the Red Line + shuttle solution (Red Line much slower); and in another thread I'm talking about the 2020 service plan change to force the #5 to run down San Jacinto instead of Guadalupe (where some of the supporting arguments came from that more people office closer to Guadalupe).

In no case is Capital Metro planning to increase or even maintain existing levels of service on Guadalupe - they're actively kicking buses off the drag (yes, Rapid Bus is coming through there; but as a long-distance service it really had no other choice; it's far outweighed by the locals being kicked off).

[M1EK]

As for the "San Jacinto is closer to more offices than Guadalupe"; here's your picture, centered at 23rd and San Jacinto. The overhead is quite striking. Yeah, there's a lot of destinations off to the right of San Jacinto, for sure.

[BlueEyes_Austin]

Originally Posted by M1EK

As for the "San Jacinto is closer to more offices than Guadalupe"; here's your picture, centered at 23rd and San Jacinto. The overhead is quite striking. Yeah, there's a lot of destinations off to the right of San Jacinto, for sure.

That's not what I claimed. I claimed that the average walk to a UT office from a San Jac stop will be less than a Guadalupe stop. Your map makes this point for me, actually. Only offices from the Tower and west are better off with the Guadalupe plan while every other location is worse off, some far worse off. Buildings that are better off include:
1) Law
2) Sid Richardson Hall
3) LBJ Library
4) Comp Science
5) Geosciences
6) Fine Arts
7) Art/Art History
8) All atheletic facilties
9) Engineering
10) Southern dorms (including Jester)
11) PCL
12) Education
13) Blanton
14) Facilties
15) Bass Concert Hall

[M1EK]

That's a very underwhelming list, given how few people are going to ride the Red Line from the burbs to athletic facilities, dorms, Bass Concert Hall, etc. And once again, engineering people have already said they prefer Guadalupe - I don't go to UT; I'm just reporting what others have said.

And by the way, UT has claimed they are recentering their campus around SJ - this was in response to the effort to run urban rail up Speedway or even on Guadalupe rather than SJ. But even their upcoming construction projects show this not to be true.

[M1EK]

After getting yet more excrement thrown at me on the internet by CM folks and people who have believed their promises, I decided to switch tacks and find the best possible case FOR the Red Line that I could (continuing the series of looking at the actual timetables to see who is better off and by how much).

Here it is. The conclusion:

Despite Capital Metro's ridiculous claims that this line serves Austin and even "central Austin", the only real beneficiaries of this service are those who live far enough out to be able to use the distant park-and-rides; a lot of whom are residents of Cedar Park and Round Rock, who don't even pay Capital Metro taxes. (I ran the Lakeline numbers quickly on a piece of paper and people boarding there can save about 20 minutes over the express bus, going to Frost; Round Rock residents driving to the Howard Lane P&R can hop the train now but no express bus service existed before; both of those two nominally 'Austin' park-and-rides are unlikely to serve many Austin residents as they are right on the edge of the city limits).

[KevinFromTexas]

Commuter rail to open March 22

By Ben Wear | Friday, March 5, 2010, 12:27 PM

Passenger rail in Austin — the subject of speculation, argumentation, elections and, finally, construction over the past 40 years — will leave the station early in the morning on March 22, Capital Metro officials announced just after noon.

Federal rail regulators, in town the past several days as Capital Metro did on-schedule testing of the 32-mile line from Leander to downtown Austin, have given their blessing. The line, which was to have opened a year ago (and even earlier under original predictions), had been plagued by glitches in its signal and gate crossing systems much of last year.

...

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte..._march_22.html

[Spaceman]

Did I hear correctly that a trip from Cedar Park to DT would be a one hour ride...Wow, slow down lightnin'!!!! How fast does this glacier travel??

[hookem]

Originally Posted by Spaceman

Did I hear correctly that a trip from Cedar Park to DT would be a one hour ride...Wow, slow down lightnin'!!!! How fast does this glacier travel??

Because the trains are primarily for show, it's only logical that they would travel slow. More people can see them that way.

It's no coincidence they'll be running tests, but won't actually be accepting passengers, during SXSW. That way attendees can spread the word that Austin has "rail", without the risk of any of them getting stranded in Leander. Would suck when they realize the last (and only) train back to town left at 5:23 pm... and then they have to pay $50-60 bux for a cab ride back to Austin (since there are no buses running late, either).

[Spaceman]

No evening service plus no week end service!!!!! Sounds like someone wants this thing to fail....They will probably get their wish...Too bad. The illusion of "rail" during SXSW is smart PR..Let attendees spread the work without even riding the train. Cuts down on the negative comments

[priller]

Originally Posted by Spaceman

No evening service plus no week end service!!!!! Sounds like someone wants this thing to fail....They will probably get their wish...Too bad.

The main reason for no night or weekend service is because the Red Line shares track with regular cargo trains. They mostly run at night and on weekends. Fed regulations don't allow both passenger and cargo trains to run at the same time.

See how great it is that CM "saved money" by using existing lines? We get inconvenient stops and inadequate service times. And the service times that we would like we can't have. Awesome! It's like buying something you don't need just because it's on sale. "But, but, I got a deal!"

The illusion of "rail" during SXSW is smart PR..Let attendees spread the work without even riding the train. Cuts down on the negative comments

But if you're in town for SXSW, where would you take the train to? The Domain, maybe?

[M1EK]

Hey, stop all the negativity. I was told by none other than Mike Martinez himself that you should just go get yourself elected to the CAMPO or Cap Met board if you want to express a negative opinion on the service without being ridiculed for your effort. (Positive feedback, of course, is more than welcome).

[hookem]

Originally Posted by priller

But if you're in town for SXSW, where would you take the train to? The Domain, maybe?

I'm guessing because the convention center stop is so visible to SXSW attendees, if the train WERE open to passengers then some folks at least would probably just jump on to see where it goes... I mean, they are on vacation, maybe they just want to explore. Then without warning, BANG! Stranded in Leander. I'll bet it would happen!

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by hookem

I'm guessing because the convention center stop is so visible to SXSW attendees, if the train WERE open to passengers then some folks at least would probably just jump on to see where it goes... I mean, they are on vacation, maybe they just want to explore. Then without warning, BANG! Stranded in Leander. I'll bet it would happen!

This is a completely awesome pilot for a show that somebody needs to start filming immediately.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Well, Guadalupe isn't being pursued - even the city isn't talking about running trains there - which, again, proves what I said about commuter rail precluding light rail on the 2000 route (not enough potential riders to justify taking away a traffic lane on Guadalupe).

I don't think the Red Line has precluded placing any rail line at grade on Guadalupe at all, CapMetro or City planners. I believe your side note has been and is the reason rail will never be routed at grade on Guadalupe, the businesses along Guadalupe don't want to lose two traffic lanes...(why you suggest it'll be only one lane is beyond me?)
I think that's amongst the reasons why the 2000 light rail refrendrum failed by 2000 votes (50-50 split) while the 2004 commuter rail (Red Line) passed by a 2 to 1 vote. The Red Line avoided Guadalupe almost entirely. The BRT CapMetro has scheduled for Guadalupe doesn't remove two traffic lanes that rail would.
The fact remains that both CapMetro and City traffic planners are both wary of taking two traffic lanes away from Guadalupe. There must be a very valid reasons on why which you can't see or acknowledge! The only way I foresee rail being built on Guadalupe at grade is in shared lanes (streetcar line); otherwise the rail will have to be built under (subway) or over (aerial guideway) Guadalupe.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by electricron

I don't think the Red Line has precluded placing any rail line at grade on Guadalupe at all, CapMetro or City planners. I believe your side note has been and is the reason rail will never be routed at grade on Guadalupe, the businesses along Guadalupe don't want to lose two traffic lanes...(why you suggest it'll be only one lane is beyond me?)
I think that's amongst the reasons why the 2000 light rail refrendrum failed by 2000 votes (50-50 split) while the 2004 commuter rail (Red Line) passed by a 2 to 1 vote. The Red Line avoided Guadalupe almost entirely. The BRT CapMetro has scheduled for Guadalupe doesn't remove two traffic lanes that rail would.
The fact remains that both CapMetro and City traffic planners are both wary of taking two traffic lanes away from Guadalupe. There must be a very valid reasons on why which you can't see or acknowledge! The only way I foresee rail being built on Guadalupe at grade is in shared lanes (streetcar line); otherwise the rail will have to be built under (subway) or over (aerial guideway) Guadalupe.

Please spare us the arguments coming from a complete lack of experience with the area and it's history - I was out waving a sign on election night in 2000; but won a dinner bet as to its outcome.

The reason the 2000 referendum lost is Krusee forced it to the polls early - as a side-effect of said earliness, many, many people said "I can't vote for this because I don't even know what streets it's going down"; to say nothing of the groundswell of suburban Republicans who came out to vote for W and voted against transit while they were at it.

The people most affected by lane reductions on Guadalupe voted overwhelmingly FOR the 2000 plan. It passed by huge margins in the central city (more than did commuter rail); it lost in the suburban parts of the service area; especially the outer reaches. Commuter rail did well out there - although not great.

Guadalupe could have stood to lose a travel lane in each direction for the 40,000+ people who would have ridden the 2000 LRT route - overall peak capacity would have improved dramatically. It cannot stand to lose a travel lane for the 10,000 or less who might ride a separate urban rail line in the area now that the awful, awful, awful diesel-belching Red Line has squatted on the northwesterly right-of-way (given far fewer will be willing to transfer than to ride through).

[BlueEyes_Austin]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Guadalupe could have stood to lose a travel lane in each direction for the 40,000+ people who would have ridden the 2000 LRT route - overall peak capacity would have improved dramatically. It cannot stand to lose a travel lane for the 10,000 or less who might ride a separate urban rail line in the area now that the awful, awful, awful diesel-belching Red Line has squatted on the northwesterly right-of-way (given far fewer will be willing to transfer than to ride through).

Do you just make stuff up?

A single transfer does not reduce ridership significantly when it is intranodal and particularly when it is rail-to-rail. In addition, the transfer at Crestwood can be designed so that there is no wait time as it would be the end point of a potential line.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by BlueEyes_Austin

Do you just make stuff up?

A single transfer does not reduce ridership significantly when it is intranodal and particularly when it is rail-to-rail. In addition, the transfer at Crestwood can be designed so that there is no wait time as it would be the end point of a potential line.

Observing city after city after city after city, it is absolutely clear that among choice-commuters (people who, before your new service, were driving); even a rail-to-rail transfer reduces ridership significantly. Why else would even New York (where transfers are admittedly frequent and driving is obviously awful) be spending many BILLIONS to move the terminus of the Long Island Railroad to a location within walking distance of so many more offices?

If you're trying to sell a new service to somebody in Leander who drives now, you really, honestly, think there's no difference between "drive to the park and ride and take this train directly to work" and "drive to the park and ride, take this first train to this one place, transfer to this second train, and then take that train directly to work"?

But thanks for the slander from behind the courageous veil of anonymity.

[BlueEyes_Austin]

I've lived in a city with great mass transit (London). I never considered a transfer from one underground line to another to be a major issue even if it was at one of the larger stations. If the best you've got is comparing a transfer from the LIRR to subway via Penn Station to four or five steps across a platform at Crestview station than the answer, I guess, is that you do just make stuff up.