AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[electricron]

I thought I suggested single tracking earlier through "The Drag".

Yes, it is possible and there is no federal ramifications doing so. Dallas is building a single track streetcar line into Oak Cliff over the Houston Street Viaduct with federal funds.

The question to be answered is which existing lane should a single track take, east or west? That in itself will create issues amongst the business along Guadalupe.

Center running would displace more traffic lanes than side running because you would have to build platforms at each station, and they would take an additional lane away. Side running would allow using the existing sidewalks as platforms, although the platform sidewalks would have to be raised (rebuilt) for level boarding. Single tracking in "The Drag" will still allow 3 to 4 lanes for traffic and parking. I would suggest a typical 3 lane configuration with the center lane for left turns, and any additional lanes left used for parking and bikes.

Over "The Drag's" mile length, it might not need double tracking at all - depending upon the headways between trains or streetcars. At a porky 10 mph average speed, a train could traverse that mile in 6 minutes. A train in the opposite direction would take another 6 minutes. Leaving no room for errors, that would allow 5 round trips per hour with 12 minute headways. Leaving room for errors, 4 round trips with 15 minute headways should be achievable. If shorter headways is desired, then double tracking will be required. In which case, I suggest moving the tracks above or below the existing highway lanes, it'll be cheaper on the taxpayers to go up.

The problem I saw and still see with the 2000 light rail plan was taking three lanes from traffic, two for the light rail tracks and an additional lane for station platforms, because that plan insisted upon center running trains. If the plan had been side running instead, using the existing sidewalks for station platforms, only two lanes would have been required. I'm sure center running would have had faster trains, but it wouldn't have saved that much time in just a mile. South of MLK the 2000 plan had the trains running in side lanes on one way streets, and north on Lamar there was and still is plenty of room for center running tracks. The fault of the plan was where they wanted to run the tracks in "The Drag" imho.

As for the 2000 referendum, if Austin had passed it with 60% of the vote (veto proof margin) the suburban vote wouldn't have mattered!

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by electricron

I thought I suggested single tracking earlier through "The Drag".

Yes, it is possible and there is no federal ramifications doing so. Dallas is building a single track streetcar line into Oak Cliff over the Houston Street Viaduct with federal funds.

The question to be answered is which existing lane should a single track take, east or west? That in itself will create issues amongst the business along Guadalupe.

Center running would displace more traffic lanes than side running because you would have to build platforms at each station, and they would take an additional lane away. Side running would allow using the existing sidewalks as platforms, although the platform sidewalks would have to be raised (rebuilt) for level boarding. Single tracking in "The Drag" will still allow 3 to 4 lanes for traffic and parking. I would suggest a typical 3 lane configuration with the center lane for left turns, and any additional lanes left used for parking and bikes.

Over "The Drag's" mile length, it might not need double tracking at all - depending upon the headways between trains or streetcars. At a porky 10 mph average speed, a train could traverse that mile in 6 minutes. A train in the opposite direction would take another 6 minutes. Leaving no room for errors, that would allow 5 round trips per hour with 12 minute headways. Leaving room for errors, 4 round trips with 15 minute headways should be achievable. If shorter headways is desired, then double tracking will be required. In which case, I suggest moving the tracks above or below the existing highway lanes, it'll be cheaper on the taxpayers to go up.

The problem I saw and still see with the 2000 light rail plan was taking three lanes from traffic, two for the light rail tracks and an additional lane for station platforms, because that plan insisted upon center running trains. If the plan had been side running instead, using the existing sidewalks for station platforms, only two lanes would have been required. I'm sure center running would have had faster trains, but it wouldn't have saved that much time in just a mile. South of MLK the 2000 plan had the trains running in side lanes on one way streets, and north on Lamar there was and still is plenty of room for center running tracks. The fault of the plan was where they wanted to run the tracks in "The Drag" imho.

As for the 2000 referendum, if Austin had passed it with 60% of the vote (veto proof margin) the suburban vote wouldn't have mattered!

I assume that there will still have to be a stop (say at 24th or 26th) along the Drag somewhere. I assume this will impact times to get through, but 10 MPH running on it's own track seems slow, so it sounds like it's doable.

So - if I read correctly. Single Track on the drag is feasible, has no ramifications with funding and will still leave enough room for at least two lanes of traffic + a turn lane and perhaps parking in parts - so long as it is on the side instead of center? Run it right next to the University - it would be good for the students, the campus and have the least impact on the drag business...is there any reason why side running is out of the question?

Why are we even fooling around with other routes? Of course it should go up the drag and through WC. If they make the turn at 45th as I suggest they can still get Mueller in the first route and a service station there have a pretty kickass first route that will definitely have high ridership.

Seems like a no brainer to me - do both, West Campus and M1ek, et. al. advocate, AND Mueller via 45th.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

I thought I suggested single tracking earlier through "The Drag".

Yes, it is possible and there is no federal ramifications doing so. Dallas is building a single track streetcar line into Oak Cliff over the Houston Street Viaduct with federal funds.

I'm not too familiar with this project, but after some googling it appears that it's a single track the whole way. So you wouldn't end up with passing issues (northbound exiting a single-track section at the same time or close proximity to a southbound train attempting to enter it). A single train just leaves, goes the whole way (1.6 miles) and then comes back.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

and north on Lamar there was and still is plenty of room for center running tracks.

There's only "plenty of room" with lots of eminent domain taking. Which both increases the pricetag and increases voter resistence (voters don't want to see their favorite <restaurant, store, hole in the wall bar, apartment complex> get bought out and shut down).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

As far as losing a lane - yes that will be necessary, but that's a trade to gain a high capacity transit line. At some point, we have to make a decision about whether rail is worth it for that. And that decision as to losing a lane doesn't change anytime in the future.

That isn't strictly true. Removing lanes in favor of transit is a cost/benefit trade off. The cost stays the same, now or in the future, but the benefit isn't constant. If the benefit of the Guadelupe line today is X, by itself, the benefit of the line at some point in the future, when it can connect to other transit lines, is like 2X-3x. Because of the network effect.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it today, but it may be more "electable" later.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I'm not too familiar with this project, but after some googling it appears that it's a single track the whole way. So you wouldn't end up with passing issues (northbound exiting a single-track section at the same time or close proximity to a southbound train attempting to enter it). A single train just leaves, goes the whole way (1.6 miles) and then comes back.

There will be a passing siding in Oak Cliff at the station location at Zang and Oakenwald. At that point, the streetcar will be center running - the station platform would use the center median while the streetcar tracks would take the left lanes of a six lane street - it will be four lanes after streetcar construction.

Initially, the streetcar route will be less than 2 miles, already the City has found money to extend the route another mile into Oak Cliff and a few more blocks into downtown Dallas. I'm not aware if the extensions will be single or double track yet, mainly because the environmental impact study hasn't been completed. The amount of money Dallas has found suggests more single track and possibly another passing siding at a new station. But lets wait and see for public release of the study and plans. What makes single tracking work more than anything else is the planned 20 minute and 30 minute headways.

And I'll agree that an average of 10 mph in a dedicated lane is slow. I just used that porky speed to show the worst case scenario that headways on a single track could support over that mile. If you double the average speed, you'll halve the headways - from 15 minutes to 7.5 minutes - between trains.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...xpected/nWbwq/

Updated: 6:18 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013 | Posted: 2:11 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013
Contract for MoPac toll lanes lower than expected

By Ben Wear
American-Statesman Staff

The low bid for adding express toll lanes to North MoPac Boulevard came in well below expectations, toll authority officials said Wednesday, allowing engineers to consider up to $20 million in enhancements to the project.

The Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority board awarded the contract for final design and construction of the 11-mile project Wednesday to a consortium led by the Colorado-based engineering firm CH2M Hill. The $136.6 million bid was more than $62 million below the second-lowest of the three bids submitted, and about $33 million below the mobility authority’s estimate of $170 million.

The Texas Department of Transportation has seen consistently low bids in recent years, as construction companies competed for work during the economic slowdown. In a couple of cases, including the construction of two MoPac flyovers at U.S. 290 and other work in Central Texas, firms went bankrupt and left projects to be finished by other companies.

-

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...project/nWcF6/

Updated: 10:36 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013 | Posted: 10:36 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013
TxDOT revives Texas 71 tollway project

By Ben Wear
American-Statesman Staff

The Texas Department of Transportation, in part using money generated by the Texas 130 tollway, has revived dormant plans to build toll lanes on Texas 71 from near Austin-Bergstrom International Airport to Texas 130.

Officials estimate the 2-mile-long project, which could begin before the end of 2014, will cost about $140 million and take two years to complete.

The tollway will run from just east of Presidential Boulevard, the airport’s main entrance, to just beyond Texas 130. It will have free-to-drive frontage roads with three lanes in each direction — Texas 71 currently has two lanes on each side for much of this stretch — and two toll lanes in each direction, TxDOT executive director Phil Wilson told the American-Statesman on Wednesday.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

There was no huge pro-W turnout in texas as a whole in 2000 (proof: link above). If you have numbers that show local results that differ (and weren't outweighed by an equally large anti-W turnout in Austin), provide them.

I've been too busy to come back to this for a while, but this is just one example of you giving homework for a common-sense proposition.

From wikipedia's Austin page:

Year Republican Democratic
2012 36.2% 140,152 60.1% 232,788
2008 34.3% 136,981 63.5% 254,017
2004 42.0% 147,885 56.0% 197,235
2000 46.9% 141,235 41.7% 125,526
1996 39.9% 98,454 52.3% 128,970
1992 31.9% 88,105 47.3% 130,546
1988 44.9% 105,915 54.1% 127,783
1984 56.8% 124,944 42.8% 94,124
1980 45.7% 73,151 46.9% 75,028
1976 46.7% 71,031 51.6% 78,585
1972 56.3% 70,561 43.2% 54,157
1968 41.6% 34,309 48.1% 39,667
1964 31.0% 19,838 68.9% 44,058

[...]

Overall, the city is a blend of downtown liberalism and suburban conservatism but leans to the political left as a whole. The city last went to a Republican candidate in 2000 when Texan resident, George Bush, successfully ran for President. This was helped in part by Ralph Nader of the Green Party partly splitting the centre-left vote by winning a sizeable 10.4%, which was largely at the expense of the Democrats. Since 2004, the Democrats rebounded strongly and John Kerry enjoyed a 14.0% margin over George Bush, who once again won Texas.[79]

Note that W got a much higher percentage of the vote IN AUSTIN than any Republican candidate since Reagan against Mondale. This area wasn't significantly more Republican in 2000 than it was in 2004 or 1996; it's that the local Republican favorite running for President motivated those people to turn out - and when they did, they were obviously more likely to vote against transit. Like I said before.


In a similar vein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

Notice the absolute population change from 2010 to 2011 in Austin (30K) dwarfs that of Round Rock (5K) even though Round Rock's percentage change is larger. If that's the case, there's no way that the actual extra-Austin jurisdictions (Leander + some unincorporated areas + Lago Vista, etc) gained more voters than did Austin.

At this point, every demand from you to me for extra homework will be refused, and I will just point out that your goals here are not to inform, but to confuse and delay; unless your very next statement is a heart-felt and conditionless apology for your past behavior.

[M1EK]

As for single-tracking, that's a horrible solution for the Drag - because the Drag is the highest activity area in the corridor. It's precisely the last spot that should have its capacity (headways) constrained. Guadalupe isn't like the Red Line where a train every half hour is sufficient to pick up demand. Remember, standing-room-only #1 buses go through this corridor right now, as bad as that service is, every 10 minutes or so during the rush hour. Add some passengers who don't take the bus now and you've quickly overwhelmed a 15-minute rail headway service, for instance. Below 15 minute headways, singletrack on Guadalupe is not going to work.

On the original TWG proposal to go out to Mueller via Manor Road, I suggested doing singletrack on Manor, so I'm not against singletrack everywhere, but that was more of a streetcar proposal, and Manor isn't the key activity area where every bit of headway counts.

The only singletrack-like proposal on Guadalupe that ever got any traction was the 2003-2004 timeframe effort from UT to (as SAM pointed out way back when) provide a one-way loop around campus - one direction going down Guadalupe and the other one going up San Jacinto, joining up at MLK and Dean Keeton. Problem is that still had two tracks in the most constrained part of Guadalupe (27th - 29th). This wasn't an effort to disrupt Guadalupe less, in other words, it was an effort to play along with the University's ridiculous claim that San Jacinto was the new center of campus activity.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by M1EK

As for single-tracking, that's a horrible solution for the Drag - because the Drag is the highest activity area in the corridor. It's precisely the last spot that should have its capacity (headways) constrained. Guadalupe isn't like the Red Line where a train every half hour is sufficient to pick up demand. Remember, standing-room-only #1 buses go through this corridor right now, as bad as that service is, every 10 minutes or so during the rush hour. Add some passengers who don't take the bus now and you've quickly overwhelmed a 15-minute rail headway service, for instance. Below 15 minute headways, singletrack on Guadalupe is not going to work.

On the original TWG proposal to go out to Mueller via Manor Road, I suggested doing singletrack on Manor, so I'm not against singletrack everywhere, but that was more of a streetcar proposal, and Manor isn't the key activity area where every bit of headway counts.

The only singletrack-like proposal on Guadalupe that ever got any traction was the 2003-2004 timeframe effort from UT to (as SAM pointed out way back when) provide a one-way loop around campus - one direction going down Guadalupe and the other one going up San Jacinto, joining up at MLK and Dean Keeton. Problem is that still had two tracks in the most constrained part of Guadalupe (27th - 29th). This wasn't an effort to disrupt Guadalupe less, in other words, it was an effort to play along with the University's ridiculous claim that San Jacinto was the new center of campus activity.

Hey M1ek, appreciate the informative response and absolutely get the importance of short headways especially there. That stretch of Guadalupe that I was suggesting for single track isn't all that long. Is there a way to interlace a double track section so that trains could pass each in the middle somewhere to get 10 minute headways. Just wondering if this might be a less-than-ideal-but-still-pretty-damn-good solution.

Or perhaps I'm just completely mistaken on what the push for not putting the rail on Guadalupe is coming from. Is this about something other than the constrained width of the ROW in that area?

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Hey M1ek, appreciate the informative response and absolutely get the importance of short headways especially there. That stretch of Guadalupe that I was suggesting for single track isn't all that long. Is there a way to interlace a double track section so that trains could pass each in the middle somewhere to get 10 minute headways. Just wondering if this might be a less-than-ideal-but-still-pretty-damn-good solution.

Or perhaps I'm just completely mistaken on what the push for not putting the rail on Guadalupe is coming from. Is this about something other than the constrained width of the ROW in that area?

The main push for not going on Guadalupe is that a lot of highly-connected people made a very stupid decision to support Rapid Bus, which is not compatible with light rail, even if we wanted to pay 100% of the cost ourselves.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The main push for not going on Guadalupe is that a lot of highly-connected people made a very stupid decision to support Rapid Bus, which is not compatible with light rail, even if we wanted to pay 100% of the cost ourselves.

Hmm. . . I can seen how the commitment to rapid bus kills rail on Guadalupe for some time. So I guess it's the Mueller route or nothing for now?

How flexible is rapid bus - could they move the routes to Lamar if there was a great push for rail on Guadalupe or is rail on Guadalupe effectively dead for the foreseeable future?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

In a similar vein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

Notice the absolute population change from 2010 to 2011 in Austin (30K) dwarfs that of Round Rock (5K) even though Round Rock's percentage change is larger. If that's the case, there's no way that the actual extra-Austin jurisdictions (Leander + some unincorporated areas + Lago Vista, etc) gained more voters than did Austin.

I didn't say they gained more voters, but they gained voters that are overwhelming against rail. Austin gained more voters, but those voters are basically evenly split for or against rail.

I did the freaking math for you. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

Originally Posted by M1EK

At this point, every demand from you to me for extra homework will be refused, and I will just point out that your goals here are not to inform, but to confuse and delay; unless your very next statement is a heart-felt and conditionless apology for your past behavior.

Homework?
Thats what you call asking you to back up your wild claims with some sort of evidence?

I'm trying to inform, you're the one who makes completely false claims (which I disprove).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The main push for not going on Guadalupe is that a lot of highly-connected people made a very stupid decision to support Rapid Bus, which is not compatible with light rail, even if we wanted to pay 100% of the cost ourselves.

That's just not true.

Look, you can't claim that the metrorapid is absolutely no better than the existing 101 express bus. And then claim that it's incompatible with rail, while the 101 was compatible with rail.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

There will be a passing siding in Oak Cliff at the station location at Zang and Oakenwald. At that point, the streetcar will be center running - the station platform would use the center median while the streetcar tracks would take the left lanes of a six lane street - it will be four lanes after streetcar construction.

Again, I'm not very familiar with this system, but from what I can tell from googling, that "passing siding" won't actually be used for passing. It's a place to park a train if it goes out of service.

http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/streetcar.asp
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/Re-E...oFTALetter.pdf

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I've been too busy to come back to this for a while, but this is just one example of you giving homework for a common-sense proposition.

From wikipedia's Austin page:

Those aren't voter turnout percentages.

I'm asking for supporting evidence, because that's what _adults_ do when having conversations and making claims. Some things that are "common sense" aren't so. "common sense" would tell you there'd be a big pro-W turnout in Texas (overall) in 2000. But voter turnout was down in Texas (see above).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

unless your very next statement is a heart-felt and conditionless apology for your past behavior.

Let's see, you have:
responded to me with explitives,
called me a "sycophant",
called me "hostile" and misleading(though I simply provided sourced and supported facts),
called me a "stooge",
impugned my reasons for posting on this board.

...yeah, I'd say one of us is deserving of an apology.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I didn't say they gained more voters, but they gained voters that are overwhelming against rail. Austin gained more voters, but those voters are basically evenly split for or against rail.

This is bullshit. That's not what you said. You said that because the suburban areas gained more voters, that the scale would be tipped way against rail.

I'm trying to inform, you're the one who makes completely false claims (which I disprove).

I'm no longer accepting homework from you, you anonymous stooge for A4PT. Have a good time. Take your lies elsewhere.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

This is bullshit. That's not what you said. You said that because the suburban areas gained more voters, that the scale would be tipped way against rail.

If that's what I said, then you should have no problem providing such a quote from me.

Since you obviously didn't look at the post where I actually did the math, let's try this one more time:

Austin has grown since 2000.
The outlying suburbs have also grown since 2000.

The fact that Austin has grown by more in absolute numbers is basically meaningless, because the suburbs (which were heavily against rail) grew by a larger percentage.

From your own figures: Austin grew by 30K (estimated) in one year. But we would expect (all factors being equal) about ~15K for those to be for rail, and ~15K to be against rail (I'm conflating population numbers with voter numbers, but so did you). The net gain, in rail-supporting voters, is very small, and is dwarfed by the net gain, in rail-opposed voters, from the suburbs.

The overall balance of voters is more suburban now than it was in 2000.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

If that's what I said, then you should have no problem providing such a quote from me.

Since you obviously didn't look at the post where I actually did the math, let's try this one more time:

Austin has grown since 2000.
The outlying suburbs have also grown since 2000.

The fact that Austin has grown by more in absolute numbers is basically meaningless, because the suburbs (which were heavily against rail) grew by a larger percentage.

From your own figures: Austin grew by 30K (estimated) in one year. But we would expect (all factors being equal) about ~15K for those to be for rail, and ~15K to be against rail (I'm conflating population numbers with voter numbers, but so did you). The net gain, in rail-supporting voters, is very small, and is dwarfed by the net gain, in rail-opposed voters, from the suburbs.

The overall balance of voters is more suburban now than it was in 2000.

You fail as a human being. You're trying to play 'gotcha' in an attempt to mislead rather than enlighten.

The first argument was that the overall electorate was tilted Republican and suburban in 2000 because of W. I showed this to be true after you called BS, despite the fact that I was here; I was involved in the campaign; and I'm not an anonymous troll.

Your second argument was that growth in the non-Austin portions of the service area had overwhelmed growth in Austin. I showed THIS not to be true.

The overall argument, that a light rail election in 2014 would be easier to win than the election was in 2000, is fucking obvious. And you repeatedly demanding citations on everything is an effort to confuse and delay, not enlighten.

I don't have time for you; and the readers who know the value of their time won't either.

You're 0 for 2. Take your campaign of misrepresentation somewhere else, please.