AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You mean like the Project Connect Vision which is the very first thing they did?

http://www.projectconnect.com/vision.php

Or the North Corridor plan?

http://www.projectconnect.com/connect/north-corridor

Yeah, the Project Connect "vision", or something similar, presented as a true master plan in which the route up to Highland would be the essential link to UT, medical center, downtown and points south of downtown, maybe even to the airport as well, kind of like DART was presented to the public two decades ago. Dallas area residents have known pretty much what was going to happen next with DART and also what they might expect when DART is finished. There was enough specific information to motivate the public (and various suburban political bodies) to support DART. This piecemeal approach to rail transit in the Austin area satisfies nobody and does not really hold out much promise to reduce current or future auto traffic or carry large numbers of passengers. I am no expert on the local proposals, and I have no interest in getting into the debate as a serious player. My personal opinion is that I don't think the city of Austin needs to get into the rail transit business. Austin needs to partner with suburban communities to come up with a very ambitious rail plan that can offer something of value to commuters both in the city and also in the suburbs.

[nixcity]

I'm glad that Project Connect has put out 3 options although not having any of them be the most obvious G/L alignment makes it not worth it for me, especially at that price tag!!

If we are willing to pay that kind of number then I propose an altogether different route. I completely hate to do this but I'd say for the November election we should leave off going south of the river. This is sacrilege to me (I live south and have always been a big proponent of using the ample width and already quite dense Riverside corridor in our first line) but I think that by saving the money needed for the bridge we could tackle the most difficult parts of G/L by going underground and running it all the way past the triangle to meet up with the Red line at Crestview. That way you still hit Highland and still open up the opportunity for those coming in from the Red Line to transfer. This will also save money from going under Hancock (I still can't believe that place is even included in this discussion, I mean really Hancock, has anyone ever even been there?). I'm not sure exactly how far south to go because I really think keeping the train underground through the heart of downtown will be best for the long run. So maybe stop around 9th street for now.

4 years later we need another bond to get us across the river and down Riverside to Grove. 4 years later (when the airport gate expansion is finished and the metro is ready for it) we get the extension to the airport and a line to the Health school and even Mueller if they prove to garnish at least one third of the density of what West Campus already is. Maybe that line could be incorporated into the cut and cap which will also need to happen somewhere in this time frame.
From there I think Round Rock/Pfugerville are the next best line, especially if we could stretch it all the way to San Antonio as Lonestar rail envisions.
I realize this will be messy and very expensive over time but we can't continue to expect to maintain a high level in quality of life if it takes 30 minutes to get 5 miles all over the area.

*side note! I sure a line to the airport would do okay but for reasons mentioned by others already I don't think it is the best bang for the buck YET for Austinites. Getting to the airport is already easy and will be even quicker here shortly when the underpass at Riverside is fully opened. One reason for me that really trumps it goes for why I don't think we are ready yet for Lonestar rail. Even if you ride the rail to dt once you get there you have no other rail options. I really doubt any city has opened with a line to the airport. Portland is always touted as a leader in rail and they didn't do it until either their fourth or fifth light rail and a streetcar already in place. And that was at a time when their airport was substantially more used then where we are at today or even 15 years down the line.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by nixcity

*side note! I sure a line to the airport would do okay but for reasons mentioned by others already I don't think it is the best bang for the buck YET for Austinites.

I agree and here's another reason why I don't think rail service to the airport is a good idea at this particular point in time. We don't have enough yearly passengers to support it. 10 million passengers may sound like a lot, but you have to consider where the passengers using ABIA are coming from, or if visiting, where they are going to. ABIA doesn't just serve the City of Austin, or even the 5-county metro area. I can't find the link or remember where I read it (it may be somewhere within the airport's master plan) but ABIA's "catchment area" is, if IIRC 11 counties.

When it comes to "local" passengers flying out of ABIA, people who live in places like Temple, Killeen/Fort Hood, Jarrell, Florence, Copperas Cove, Georgetown, Pflugerville, Round Rock, Hutto, Taylor, Westlake Hills, Rollingwood, Bastrop, Manor, Elgin, La Grange, Lockhart, Luling, Kyle, Buda, San Marcos, Liberty Hill, Marble Falls, Burnet, Llano, Lampassas, etc. most likely aren't going to be using rail to get to the airport.

The same thing applies to visitors flying into ABIA. Not everyone is going to be staying downtown or even within the city limits. Many will be doing business or visiting friends/relatives in the outlying cities/counties.

When you take away all those passengers, plus the ones that live in the city limits, but in places like Circle C, Steiner Ranch, Barton Creek Square Mall area, etc, (who also probably wouldn't use rail to get to the airport,) and then subtract the number of daily passengers who make connections through ABIA who never set foot outside the terminal, and thus wouldn't be using rail, I don't think there's enough leftover passengers to make it worthwhile to extend the service all the way to the airport.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

I agree and here's another reason why I don't think rail service to the airport is a good idea at this particular point in time. We don't have enough yearly passengers to support it. 10 million passengers may sound like a lot, but you have to consider where the passengers using ABIA are coming from, or if visiting, where they are going to. ABIA doesn't just serve the City of Austin, or even the 5-county metro area. I can't find the link or remember where I read it (it may be somewhere within the airport's master plan) but ABIA's "catchment area" is, if IIRC 11 counties.

When it comes to "local" passengers flying out of ABIA, people who live in places like Temple, Killeen/Fort Hood, Jarrell, Florence, Copperas Cove, Georgetown, Pflugerville, Round Rock, Hutto, Taylor, Westlake Hills, Rollingwood, Bastrop, Manor, Elgin, La Grange, Lockhart, Luling, Kyle, Buda, San Marcos, Liberty Hill, Marble Falls, Burnet, Llano, Lampassas, etc. most likely aren't going to be using rail to get to the airport.

The same thing applies to visitors flying into ABIA. Not everyone is going to be staying downtown or even within the city limits. Many will be doing business or visiting friends/relatives in the outlying cities/counties.

When you take away all those passengers, plus the ones that live in the city limits, but in places like Circle C, Steiner Ranch, Barton Creek Square Mall area, etc, (who also probably wouldn't use rail to get to the airport,) and then subtract the number of daily passengers who make connections through ABIA who never set foot outside the terminal, and thus wouldn't be using rail, I don't think there's enough leftover passengers to make it worthwhile to extend the service all the way to the airport.

All excellent points. Houston's Metro doesn't reach any airports yet, but DFW's Dart will later this summer, at the point the light rail tracks reach over 90 miles of linear coverage using 4 lines. It's hard to visualize a 10 mile system and one line servicing enough passengers to make the line to the airport worthwhile.
In addition, even Dart's reach into DFW will be several miles long between stations, where no one can get on and off the trains. I estimate at least a 5 mile stretch using google earth - not your prototypical 1/2 mile to 1 mile distance between light rail stations in urban neighborhoods, or 1 to 2 mile distance in suburban neighborhoods. That IS a really long distance between light rail stations.
I'm not going to suggest reaching ABIA with urban rail will have that long a gap between stations, but it will be longer than most.

[AusTxDevelopment]

From the Austin Transportation Department, in case anyone is interested:

Reminder: Share your thoughts on improvements to I-35 at upcoming open houses

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), in partnership with the City of Austin and the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), will host three open house-style public meetings for proposed improvements to I-35 between SH 45 North and SH 45 South.

The proposed improvements are being evaluated through a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study as part of the Mobility35 Program. The PEL Study will focus specifically on the proposed I-35 Future Transportation Corridor (FTC), which could allow two additional travel mainlanes (one in each direction) within the existing right-of-way.

The public meetings start next week and will be held from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the following locations:

Tuesday, June 3
Kealing Middle School
1607 Pennsylvania Avenue
Austin, TX 78702

Wednesday, June 4
Akins High School
10701 South First Street
Austin, TX 78748

Thursday, June 5
Frank Fickett Scout Training and Service Center Conference Center
12500 North I-35
Austin, TX 78753

Those unable to attend the Open Houses can provide input online at a Virtual Open House that will run from June 3-15, 2014. A link to the online open house will be available beginning June 3 at www.Mobility35.org.

More information about the study can be found on the Mobility35 website, www.Mobility35.org.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

All excellent points. Houston's Metro doesn't reach any airports yet, but DFW's Dart will later this summer, at the point the light rail tracks reach over 90 miles of linear coverage using 4 lines. It's hard to visualize a 10 mile system and one line servicing enough passengers to make the line to the airport worthwhile.
In addition, even Dart's reach into DFW will be several miles long between stations, where no one can get on and off the trains. I estimate at least a 5 mile stretch using google earth - not your prototypical 1/2 mile to 1 mile distance between light rail stations in urban neighborhoods, or 1 to 2 mile distance in suburban neighborhoods. That IS a really long distance between light rail stations.
I'm not going to suggest reaching ABIA with urban rail will have that long a gap between stations, but it will be longer than most.

A nicely timed article on this very subject:

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpr...rt-connectors/

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by Novacek

A nicely timed article on this very subject:

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpr...rt-connectors/

The article has the same problem as the 'urban elites' the author criticizes - it focuses on air travelers, rather than employees. Airports with successful rail connections have large employment bases due to their status as hubs. Successful transit projects focus on serving employment trips for a reason. They need reliable daily trips to achieve ridership goals. ABIA has relatively few employees, and most do not live in areas that could be even served by transit.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...hybrid/371986/

Austin Wants to Build a Light Rail-Streetcar Hybrid

Austin Urban Rail couples the best part of streetcar and light-rail transit to connect urban and suburban commuters.

KRISTON CAPPS @kristoncapps Jun 3, 2014

Last month, Austinites got a first look at Austin Urban Rail, the light-rail project at the heart of a high-capacity transit vision for Central Texas. The 9.5-mile track extends from East Riverside Drive north over Lady Bird Lake (via a new, to-be-constructed bridge) through east downtown to Highland Mall north of the city.

The project is expected to cost $1.4 billion (in 2020 dollars). That figure includes estimated costs for design services as well as vehicle and right-of-way acquisitions. The vehicles that Austin will get are something new, according to Kyle Keahey, vice president for HNTB and urban rail project lead.

"Light-rail manufacturers want to improve their vehicles to compete in the streetcar arena," Keahey says.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...hybrid/371986/

Keakey argues that the $1.4 billion price-tag puts Austin's proposed urban rail in line with other recent light-rail initiatives.

Light-Rail Corridor Length (in miles) Cost Year
Houston Southeast 6.6 $823 million 2012
Houston North 5.3 $756 million 2013
Portland-Milwaukie 7.3 $1.49 billion 2013
Minneapolis–St. Paul 9.8 $957 million 2013
Austin Urban Rail 9.5 $1.38 billion 2014

Really, let's review the cost per mile:
Houston Southeast $139.8 million/mile
Houston North $142.6 million/mile
Portland-Milwaukie $204.1 million/mile
Minneapolis–St. Paul $97.6 million/mile
Austin Urban Rai $145.2 million/mile
Drop the Portland-Milwaukie line with its signature bridge and west coast prices, the Austin line would be the most expensive.
Another line built during the same time period not listed:
Norfolk 7.4 miles $318.5 million 2011
Cost per mile being $43 million/mile

Norfolk's Tide had significant cost overruns over projections, yet in comparison to Austin's proposal, is a diamond in the rough when it comes to affordability.

Does anyone else see an Austin boondoggle?

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by electricron

Keakey argues that the $1.4 billion price-tag puts Austin's proposed urban rail in line with other recent light-rail initiatives.

Light-Rail Corridor Length (in miles) Cost Year
Houston Southeast 6.6 $823 million 2012
Houston North 5.3 $756 million 2013
Portland-Milwaukie 7.3 $1.49 billion 2013
Minneapolis–St. Paul 9.8 $957 million 2013
Austin Urban Rail 9.5 $1.38 billion 2014

Really, let's review the cost per mile:
Houston Southeast $139.8 million/mile
Houston North $142.6 million/mile
Portland-Milwaukie $204.1 million/mile
Minneapolis–St. Paul $97.6 million/mile
Austin Urban Rai $145.2 million/mile
Drop the Portland-Milwaukie line with its signature bridge and west coast prices, the Austin line would be the most expensive.
Another line built during the same time period not listed:
Norfolk 7.4 miles $318.5 million 2011
Cost per mile being $43 million/mile

Norfolk's Tide had significant cost overruns over projections, yet in comparison to Austin's proposal, is a diamond in the rough when it comes to affordability.

Does anyone else see an Austin boondoggle?

No.

Norfolk Tide was built primarily on railroad ROW using ballasted track, while the others are predominantly in street running. There is a huge difference in cost for those two approaches.

You do realize that Austin's Urban Rail cost estimates are planning estimates, right? As such they contain about 50% contingency. The last thing you want to do at this stage is low ball the estimate and say it will cost about $1 billion, and then once you start actual engineering, discover things that drive up the cost to $1.4 billion. Also, the cost estimates are in Year of Expenditure dollars, not 2011 dollars.

[M1EK]

Austin's Rapid Bus Struggles After a Slow Start

When MetroRapid opened, it essentially replaced two routes along the same stretch of road. The new rapid option costs more, with less frequent stops, and as a result ridership on the new rapid option has been weak. Comparing average weekday ridership between those two routes and the MetroRapid route in the spring months between the years 2013 and 2014, ridership has actually fallen 11 percent.

Bear this in mind as you establish credibility for future interactions - there's only one person here who didn't buy into the crappy hype.

[NYC2ATX]

Considering the fact that this is a hybrid system (something I didn't fully understand until reading that article just posted) which allows more flexibility in terms of the type of pathways for travel it can take, that helps to justify the cost for me.

In essence, Austin isn't just thinking ahead in terms of where the major population centers will be around 2020, but they will have bragging rights of being home to the first completed system using a new hybrid light rail-streetcar method. This also explains the term "urban rail" to me, which until now I thought sounded like just a gimmicky label. Now it makes a lot more sense. That might even help to differentiate it as Austin's system.

As in:
Boston has the T
Chicago has the L
New York has the Subway
Washington has the Metro
San Fran has the Muni
Dallas has the Dart
...and Austin has the Urban? Maybe

[hookem]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

You do realize that Austin's Urban Rail cost estimates are planning estimates, right? As such they contain about 50% contingency. The last thing you want to do at this stage is low ball the estimate and say it will cost about $1 billion, and then once you start actual engineering, discover things that drive up the cost to $1.4 billion. Also, the cost estimates are in Year of Expenditure dollars, not 2011 dollars.

And the Red Line, Waller Creek Tunnel, the Downtown Library, and Boardwalk probably also had big contingencies too. When was the last time a big project like that ever came in under budget, or under the contingency?

If the voters allow the city to spend $1.4b on this project, that is what will be spent (and probably more). You can be sure everyone involved will make sure it costs at least the maximum estimated. Then when the real contingencies happen, like some unknown problem, that will be stacked on top like it always is.

[Novacek]

Anyone interested in looking at the Metrorapid ridership in an unbiased manner would be best served by actually adding the right numbers. I myself am curious, but I'm guessing the actual data isn't available yet (though would be happy to be corrected if someone can point me to it).

The 101 and the 1 L were not replaced by the 801. The 101 and the 1L were replaced by the 801 and the 275.

(technically 101/1M/1L were replaced by 801/1/275, so we should be comparing the sum of all three, plus the 201 was expected to pick up some trips as well, but let's not complicate matters).

Any claim that ridership has fallen, while omitting one of the replacement routes, is not supported.

[cvalkan]

TomTom (the GPS people) analyze and report on congestion. Their 2013 report on the western hemisphere has Austin in 25th place. We're 16th (by their measure) out of US cities.

http://www.tomtom.com/en_us/trafficindex/

The detail page on each city provides additional information.

[ATXboom]

http://m.statesman.com/news/news/loc...roposed/ngFdz/

North central neighborhood groups all support Guad-Lamar route. This thing is def going to fail bond election.

[M1EK]

Those tempted to believe the Capital Metro apologist upstream should consider the fact that if this explained the drop, Capital Metro themselves would have suggested it as an answer to the reporter.

In fact, counting the 275 riders might give the replacement too much credit, if the 275 riders used to be long-distance 1 riders (they'd then be transferring to either the 1 or the 801 at the NLTC and would hence be counted twice).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

http://m.statesman.com/news/news/loc...roposed/ngFdz/

North central neighborhood groups all support Guad-Lamar route. This thing is def going to fail bond election.

These are the same neighborhood groups that fight every time against the very thing (density) which is necessary to make a transit line work?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

In fact, counting the 275 riders might give the replacement too much credit, if the 275 riders used to be long-distance 1 riders (they'd then be transferring to either the 1 or the 801 at the NLTC and would hence be counted twice).

Certainly there exists the potential for double-counting. That's why doing this sort of analysis is _hard_. But if you don't have the data, then don't make the claim. (and by "you", I mean the reporter).

Of course, it goes the other way as well. With the 101 stopping at the NLTC, there existed the potential of riders taking the 1L down to the NLTC, then transferring to the 101 (and being double-counted). Probably not very many (but then there probably aren't very many doing a 275 to 801 transfer either, most will just go to the nearest 801 stop).

Basically, at this point, all that really can be said is: Despite all the sturm and drang about the ticket prices, ridership is already back to where it was before (within the margin of error). And that's before the 803 starts up, which has the potential to improve ridership in this corridor as well (due to network effect).

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Basically, at this point, all that really can be said is: Despite all the sturm and drang about the ticket prices, ridership is already back to where it was before (within the margin of error). And that's before the 803 starts up, which has the potential to improve ridership in this corridor as well (due to network effect).

No, ridership is not already back to where it was before (within the margin of error).

The estimate of ridership (drop) came from Capital Metro themselves. It was first given during a meeting a few weeks ago.

Capital Metro promised ridership increases; not drops; not staying the same. It was touted as a 'game-changer', and not years from now; an immediate game-changer. Meanwhile, I wrote this post several years ago which you should re-read now.

Todd Hemingson tried the same angle with commuter rail a few months in, when ridership was in the 800 boardings/day range (before express buses were cancelled), claiming they only predicted 1700-2000 boardings "in a few years"; only to have me dig up testimony he gave that indicated they expected that on day one. Rapid Bus is a similar story - JMVC et al never said "this will be a GAME-CHANGER and by that what I mean is slow, steady, progress over the next few years".

Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?