HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5201  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 9:59 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Again, this is quite easy to come up with, they had the exact positions of the stations, which is what was used recently for the estimates
No, they didn't.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4U...d5YTVTY0U/view

"Station points were determined as a part of a follow-on study by Capital Metro in 2001 titled The Rapid Transit

Project but were not defined for the proposal in 2000."

The 2000 vote hadn't even gotten that far yet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
and as shown here by Mr. Henry, the alignment would be able to retain 2 lanes of traffic for most of it.
https://austinrailnow.com/2014/12/09...amar-corridor/
And the final plans and alignment would be extremely easy to finalize for this route.
.
Again, this is post hoc and wasn't done for the 2000 vote.

Notice the "Graphic: ARN."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5202  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 10:04 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Not necessarily, a few other cities have done it this way, including Houston,
When did Houston?

1. Pass a voter referendum committing on a route and price
then
2. Design the system and figure out it's price
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5203  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 10:09 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Actually, as shown here, they were asking for $410 million.
http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...rches-council/
But the full sidewalk plan (not just the very high priority) is over a Billion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5204  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 1:16 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Again, this is quite easy to come up with, they had the exact positions of the stations, which is what was used recently for the estimates and as shown here by Mr. Henry, the alignment would be able to retain 2 lanes of traffic for most of it.
https://austinrailnow.com/2014/12/09...amar-corridor/
And the final plans and alignment would be extremely easy to finalize for this route.

Nope, the sidewalk and bike plan would pass easily and the suburban roads (MLK, Parmer and 620) are already tied into the corridor plans.
Interesting drawing from the Austin Rail Now link that shouldn't be ignored.


Within the available existing 80 feet right of way, you get two light rail tracks in 12 feet dedicated lanes, four 10 feet wide vehicle lanes, and two 8 feet wide sidewalks. There's isn't room for station platforms, bike lanes, bus lanes, turning lanes, or parking lanes. Would left turns be allowed? Will businesses like losing all on the street parking spaces? It's a very tight fit. Wherever the stations are located, someone would have to buy the land to widen the highway to make room for the platforms, and along the Drag that means either taking UT property or on the opposite side of the street, displacing the stores that make the Drag so popular.

The street in San Francisco used for comparison doesn't have the amount of traffic as the Drag.

Another point I missed in the link within the link, is how they came up with the projected costs? There was no discussion at all over costs to do anything; costs of rail, costs of vehicles, cost of catenary, cost of signaling, cost of labor, cost of materials, cost of design, cost of getting permits, etc. it's like the proposers of the bond program took a stab in the dark and hoped $500 million was enough! Would they give the money back to the taxpayers if that was too much? What would they do if it wasn't enough?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5205  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 2:12 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
and along the Drag that means either taking UT property or on the opposite side of the street, displacing the stores that make the Drag so popular.
The Drag is a special case(I think it may even be narrower than 80 feet?), but that should be already being dealt with by the Guadalupe corridor plan (reminder, everyone vote for the mobility bond!).

It's basically an invariant, whether for rail or buses.



Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Another point I missed in the link within the link, is how they came up with the projected costs? There was no discussion at all over costs to do anything; costs of rail, costs of vehicles, cost of catenary, cost of signaling, cost of labor, cost of materials, cost of design, cost of getting permits, etc.
Where's the storage and maintenence yard? How big is it, where are those acres of land along that five miles?

What vehicles are they using, and do they have to be bidirectional to turn around at Crestview? At republic square?

What's the profile throughout the corridor, how much eminent domain is necessary?

They finally answered how many stations (apparently 10) which is more than half of the 2014 plan. How big are they and how much eminent domain is necessary there?

How big is the engineering contingency buffer (I think the 2014 plan was 30%)?

What year is the claimed cost, and what is it inflation-adjusted to YoE?

What's the plan for the existing bus service in that corridor?

What are the annual operating expenses? Who's paying that, and from what source?

What the the plans for expansion, both north and south? How do you cross the freight rail at Crestview? How do you cross the river?

Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
it's like the proposers of the bond program took a stab in the dark and hoped $500 million was enough! Would they give the money back to the taxpayers if that was too much? What would they do if it wasn't enough?
I think they're actually claiming $400 M.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5206  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 4:13 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
With respect to when the station plans were decided I know it was done post 2000, but we are in 2016 which is when I want to vote on this MOS plan. Yes, I am also painfully aware of how much full buildout of the sidewalks is, but I am focusing on this year's bond initiative.
I don't want to bog this thread down because I know people on this particular site get tired of it and tune out but I will say that they have some informal agreements with a few businesses willing to give some space for stations along the drag and that there is plenty of room for the O&M facility just south of the tracks at Crestview although it would be much better to put it around Lamar and 183 but since this bond calls mostly for the same old widening roads it would cost too much.
All the questions asked are of course valid, my thinking is that we need to take advantage of this presidential election to get the money secured and then direct AECOM, the group with the contract to do yet another corridor study for transit, to complete the work. They have worked successfully on light rail in Portland and I believe Denver as well. Here is a quote that may help show this is possible. “There may be some quick champion programs that we’ll be moving faster than the second part of the scope of the award, which is basically looking at new high-capacity transit,” Arguello said.
If we don't get this on the bond this year when do you all think it will make it? I'm afraid by missing this golden opportunity and spending a large amount on this bond would push it back 4 more years....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5207  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 4:24 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
they have some informal agreements with a few businesses willing to give some space for stations along the drag
Who is "they"?

CACDC? They're in no position to have any sort of "agreements" with businesses, as they're just two private citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
and that there is plenty of room for the O&M facility just south of the tracks at Crestview
By "plenty of room" you mean that you'd have to take out all the businesses on one side of that intersection? Maybe both (how many vehicles are we talking about, we don't know, do we)?
Which means instead of the TOD zoning that's supposed to be on all that land, it will now be "wasted".

Which is why creating a line that's so short it can't even make it outside the highway loop is foolish.
1) You have to put the vehicle maintenance and storage on expensive, inner city, should-be-productive land.
2) it hurts ridership.
They've even claimed they'll get riders from people transferring at the NLTC. Which is a mile walk away!
Do they think people will come in on one bus, transfer to a second bus at NLTC, then transfer AGAIN to the rail after 1 mile?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5208  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 4:27 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
The Drag is a special case(I think it may even be narrower than 80 feet?), but that should be already being dealt with by the Guadalupe corridor plan (reminder, everyone vote for the mobility bond!).
It's basically an invariant, whether for rail or buses.
Where's the storage and maintenence yard? How big is it, where are those acres of land along that five miles?
What vehicles are they using, and do they have to be bidirectional to turn around at Crestview? At republic square?
What's the profile throughout the corridor, how much eminent domain is necessary?
They finally answered how many stations (apparently 10) which is more than half of the 2014 plan. How big are they and how much eminent domain is necessary there?
How big is the engineering contingency buffer (I think the 2014 plan was 30%)?
What year is the claimed cost, and what is it inflation-adjusted to YoE?
What's the plan for the existing bus service in that corridor?
What are the annual operating expenses? Who's paying that, and from what source?
What the the plans for expansion, both north and south? How do you cross the freight rail at Crestview? How do you cross the river?
I think they're actually claiming $400 M.
All of your additional questions were interesting. Whether it was $400 or $500 million doesn't matter, it seems to me they pulled that number out of a hat.

If you look at the drawing with the 80 feet right-of-way again, if it were streetcars sharing lanes instead of light rail in dedicated lanes, there would be room for parking, bikes, station (stop) platforms, etc. Beleive it or not, there are streetcars that are just as long as most light rail trains. I'm trying to suggest they are proposing building the wrong type of train.

Maintenance facilities is an important concern the proposers have failed to address. I haven't the slightest idea where it should be, but anywhere along that short corridor it will be very expensive to locate.

As for extending the train further north, they will have to either build a viaduct over the freight/commuter tracks, or build an underpass in a cut ditch under them. In that case, a dedicated rail corridor viaduct would be cheaper than building a shared road/rail line viaduct.

Last edited by electricron; Jul 14, 2016 at 4:33 PM. Reason: o
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5209  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 9:09 PM
We vs us We vs us is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
With respect to when the station plans were decided I know it was done post 2000, but we are in 2016 which is when I want to vote on this MOS plan. Yes, I am also painfully aware of how much full buildout of the sidewalks is, but I am focusing on this year's bond initiative.
I don't want to bog this thread down because I know people on this particular site get tired of it and tune out but I will say that they have some informal agreements with a few businesses willing to give some space for stations along the drag and that there is plenty of room for the O&M facility just south of the tracks at Crestview although it would be much better to put it around Lamar and 183 but since this bond calls mostly for the same old widening roads it would cost too much.
All the questions asked are of course valid, my thinking is that we need to take advantage of this presidential election to get the money secured and then direct AECOM, the group with the contract to do yet another corridor study for transit, to complete the work. They have worked successfully on light rail in Portland and I believe Denver as well. Here is a quote that may help show this is possible. “There may be some quick champion programs that we’ll be moving faster than the second part of the scope of the award, which is basically looking at new high-capacity transit,” Arguello said.
If we don't get this on the bond this year when do you all think it will make it? I'm afraid by missing this golden opportunity and spending a large amount on this bond would push it back 4 more years....
I was disappointed that Adler's "go big" package was all car based. Not that we don't need car based infrastructure, but going big to me would've meant putting another rail line front and center. In a city that's got a history of being peevish about transit, that would've been truly ballsy.

I'm ready to vote for almost any light rail funding I can get my hands on at this point. Hard to admit that I'm that much of a sucker but I really don't care anymore. We're on enough of a growth curve that rail isn't optional -- at least as part of the dynamic that sees that growth curve continuing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5210  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2016, 8:15 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
It's my least favorite corridor, but I think I understand why it's in there.

I think Austin has recognized that it can't stop all sprawl. But to a certain extent, it feels it can steer growth/sprawl to the east and away from the environmentally sensitive regions in the west.

So this seems like an attempt to do that.

Between this, 183S toll, 290 Toll, 71 toll, and 130, the east region of the city has been getting a massive road increase.
Somewhat related to this, I ran across this blog post.

https://pedestrianobservations.wordp...cars/#comments

Basically, the claim is that by attempting to completely eliminate sprawl, you just push the sprawl into the exurban region where it can only be served by cars (not by transit).

Potentially, with this 969 expansion you can put the sprawl into this region where it can eventually reach a critical mass and be served by, for instance, the Green Line rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5211  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2016, 8:31 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by We vs us View Post
I was disappointed that Adler's "go big" package was all car based. Not that we don't need car based infrastructure, but going big to me would've meant putting another rail line front and center. In a city that's got a history of being peevish about transit, that would've been truly ballsy.

I'm ready to vote for almost any light rail funding I can get my hands on at this point. Hard to admit that I'm that much of a sucker but I really don't care anymore. We're on enough of a growth curve that rail isn't optional -- at least as part of the dynamic that sees that growth curve continuing.
Rail is an option if city planners plan a multimodal approach. The existing Red Line trains are full during the morning and evening peaks. Doubling the length of the trains would double its capacity, but will require lengthening all the station platforms. Not one additional track would be needed to do so. But longer platforms is not accomplished cheaply.
Doubling the frequency of the trains is another way to double its capacity, but more passing sidings (double tracking) is not accomplished cheaply.
Doing both of the above can quadruple capacity, but comes at the expense of doing both.

The proposed Green Line towards Manor and Elgin can also be implemented cheaply (for less than $500 Million) because CapMetro already owns the corridor.

There's a ex-MKT corridor north towards Pflugerville that is owned by TXDOT, it will be more expensive to add rail on it because the existing rail infrastructure has been mostly removed and would have to be replaced.

Most of Austin's streets are too narrow for light rail lines in dedicated lanes, but streetcars in shared lanes are possible. So are rapid bus lines.

Most of the consultants Austin has hired in the past to study various corridors keep finding the most expensive solutions to be recommended to the taxpayers in a referendum. Maybe the transit agency's Board members should be looking at recommending building the cheaper solution now?

I strongly believe finding and saving transit corridors right-of-way is what's more important to be doing now so there will be rail corridors available where transit systems, of whichever type chosen, can be built cheaper in the future. That also means saving space within TXDOT freeway and highway corridors for rai lines. Austin isn't bisected with many existing ail corridor, and it's a mistake to not be looking at ways to create more of them whenever possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5212  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2016, 8:42 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
I strongly believe finding and saving transit corridors right-of-way is what's more important to be doing now so there will be rail corridors available where transit systems, of whichever type chosen, can be built cheaper in the future. That also means saving space within TXDOT freeway and highway corridors for rai lines. Austin isn't bisected with many existing ail corridor, and it's a mistake to not be looking at ways to create more of them whenever possible.
True dat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5213  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2016, 9:20 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Rail is an option if city planners plan a multimodal approach. The existing Red Line trains are full during the morning and evening peaks. Doubling the length of the trains would double its capacity, but will require lengthening all the station platforms. Not one additional track would be needed to do so. But longer platforms is not accomplished cheaply.
Doubling the frequency of the trains is another way to double its capacity, but more passing sidings (double tracking) is not accomplished cheaply.
Doing both of the above can quadruple capacity, but comes at the expense of doing both.
In the long term, I think doubling the DMUs will be a good improvement.

Between the two, doubling the frequency (as they're doing now) is probably the right call. It not only increases the capacity, but also increases the utility of the line (it halves the wait).

It may also be that the sidings necessary for doubling are also sufficient for even larger frequency increases in the future, which would "only" require buying even more DMUs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
The proposed Green Line towards Manor and Elgin can also be implemented cheaply (for less than $500 Million) because CapMetro already owns the corridor.
Yep, this should also be a good improvement long term, assuming more long term growth to the east.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
There's a ex-MKT corridor north towards Pflugerville that is owned by TXDOT, it will be more expensive to add rail on it because the existing rail infrastructure has been mostly removed and would have to be replaced.
I don't that's the big difference (I think that's also required for the green line, which is why that one is more expensive than the original red line).
The big difference is
1) that TxDot is claiming that it can't be used for rail (except possibly by buying it back from txdot)
2) Pflugerville has historically been against rail
3) It's got a road built on part of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Most of Austin's streets are too narrow for light rail lines in dedicated lanes, but streetcars in shared lanes are possible. So are rapid bus lines.
I think we need to incrementally add exclusive lanes and queue jumpers to the existing bus service.

I'm not sure of the utility of rail service without those exclusive lanes (over and above rapid bus in those same corridors).



Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
That also means saving space within TXDOT freeway and highway corridors for rai lines.
Good luck getting txdot to agree to that (see mokan corridor).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5214  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2016, 12:34 PM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
I still think over or under is the best way for rail to succeed in Austin...that way we don't have to worry about shared lanes vs. dedicated lanes, etc. You guys might have a better idea of why that could or could not work, but from where I sit, it seems like a no-brainer. Under would probably be disqualified due to cost, of course, but over (i.e., elevated rail) is *relatively* cheap to construct.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5215  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2016, 1:30 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
but over (i.e., elevated rail) is *relatively* cheap to construct.
Purely financially, perhaps (again, relatively).

But there's an additional political cost of anything elevated (even highways, some of the pushback on mopac south is on the elevated portion).

People don't like to look at it. They don't like to think someone is staring into their backyards (which, since all of Austin's corridors are like one parcel deep and immediately abut single family zoning, would be possible). They don't like to hear it.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't support it in a heartbeat, but there would be pushback.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5216  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2016, 3:21 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
The EIS for potential high speed rail from OkC to South Texas is up.

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18257
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/pr...homa-rail.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5217  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2016, 4:45 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
The EIS for potential high speed rail from OkC to South Texas is up.

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18257
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/pr...homa-rail.html
I just skimmed over it due to It's size but my first inpression is they treat Austin no different than Waco or Temple. That we are just a pass through stop and the line/lines would only directly serve the airport and completely bypass the heart of Austin though they make sure to have the line go into the hearts of DFW and San Antonio with multiple stops. Austin isn't mentioned a whole lot either with most of the focus for the central corridor either for DFW or SA.

We are no more than an afterthought.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5218  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2016, 4:54 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
The EIS for potential high speed rail from OkC to South Texas is up.

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18257
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/pr...homa-rail.html
The recommended preferred alternatives for each geographic section are as follows: 
Northern Section (OKC to DFW)
- N4A Conventional

Central Section (DFW to SA)
- C4A High-Speed Rail
- C4B High-Speed Rail
- C4C High-Speed Rail

Southern Section (SA to L)
- S4 Higher-Speed Rail
- S6 Higher-Speed Rail or High-Speed Rail, but only with a connection to Monterrey, Mexico

Definitions:
Conventional Rail =
Diesel powered trains over existing freight railroad tracks at speeds of 90 mph or less.
Higher Speed Rail =
Diesel powered trains over brand new tracks in existing railroad or existing transportation corridors at speeds of 110 to 125 mph.
High Speed Rail=
Electric powered trains on brand new tracks in brand new corridors at 200+ mph speeds.

To summarize;
The recommendation north to Oklahoma City uses the existing tracks the Heartland Flyer uses with just more trains per day in service.
The recommendation south to San Antonio uses new tracks in a brand new HSR corridor.
The recommendation south of San Antonio uses new tracks in existing corridors if the train doesn't cross the Rio Grande - but leaves open the possibility of new HSR tracks in a new HSR corridor if the train heads to Monterrey.

I didn't read any projected cost estimations of the various proposals - it is way too early to even provide an educated guess because there's too many variables. I am happy that the EIS has identified a potential corridor for true HSR between Waco and San Antonio, and three different routes north of Waco to DFW metroplex. At least there's a potential path for nimbies to organize against and supporters to advocate for.

I strongly believe the only HSR lines in the future of Texas will be built by private enterprise, whether its Texas Central or another train company. TXDOT might get involved with conventional or higher speed projects at best. The idea that one could take a high speed train between Oklahoma City and Dallas-Ft.Worth is finally dead. The idea that one could take a one seat high speed train ride from Dallas-Ft.Worth to any city south of San Antonio is practically dead. The idea that one could take a high speed train between Dallas-Ft.Worth and San Antonio is still alive, but I consider public financing for such a project should be considered in critical condition on life support looking for funding.

Last edited by electricron; Jul 20, 2016 at 5:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5219  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2016, 7:23 PM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
I scan this thread every time I visit the site, but I'm rarely up for the challenge of reading the plethora of new comments. The fact that Austin's Skyscraperpage (about skyscrapers?) is led by transportation for the most comments (unless you add "Austin Update" I and II) is very discouraging. I say this not to disparage those of you who've contributed so much to this discussion, but because it highlights the gulf between visions of a functional transportation system and our current reality. The thread is enormous because the problem is enormous, and its solutions are enormously complicated, expensive, and additionally problematic. There's just no easy way out.

One thing I'd propose is that our mayors not travel to other countries promoting business investment here, as Steve Adler has been doing. Uh, do we really need more new business here? This is what has caused the traffic nightmare in the first place --- we've got a funky little old frat house and we're inviting the world to our party. Something's gotta give, and it's the transportation (and the C.o.L.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5220  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2016, 8:38 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech House View Post
I scan this thread every time I visit the site, but I'm rarely up for the challenge of reading the plethora of new comments. The fact that Austin's Skyscraperpage (about skyscrapers?) is led by transportation for the most comments (unless you add "Austin Update" I and II) is very discouraging. I say this not to disparage those of you who've contributed so much to this discussion, but because it highlights the gulf between visions of a functional transportation system and our current reality. The thread is enormous because the problem is enormous, and its solutions are enormously complicated, expensive, and additionally problematic. There's just no easy way out.

One thing I'd propose is that our mayors not travel to other countries promoting business investment here, as Steve Adler has been doing. Uh, do we really need more new business here? This is what has caused the traffic nightmare in the first place --- we've got a funky little old frat house and we're inviting the world to our party. Something's gotta give, and it's the transportation (and the C.o.L.)
Ugh... Not promoting our city would kill it. Thanks, but not thanks. I'd rather have the issues that come in tandem with the positives than not have the positives at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:51 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.