AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Talk about revisionist history!

Until you identify yourself, I hope people will treat your attempts to undermine me as they deserve.

The 2000 MOS planned about a billion dollars, total. Half of that is $500M, total. Half is what the Feds have been matching lately. The amount CM's spent so far by some more realistic estimates than yours, plus the amount they want to spend on commuter rail, plus the amount they rebated in 1/4 cent money, is getting awfully close to that $500M. Period. Really simple.

You went to an awful lot of trouble to make 2000 LRT look a lot less feasible than it really was, for such an avowed fan of light rail, Lyndon.

But I'm not so selfish that I don't support other transit investments that benefit other parts of the community. Since nobody has invented a wayback machine yet, the best we can do is support the Urban Rail plan, and push to expand it to benefit as much of the community as possible. I will also continue to support commuter rail improvements and expansion because it will benefit the larger regional community, even if it doesn't directly benefit me.

There is a vanishingly small number of people who will see any benefit at all from commuter rail, as I've shown by comparing travel times to existing express bus service in blog posts such as this one.

To summarize that category of posts, basically, nobody closer in than the Leander station boardees will benefit from the Red Line, unless you live at Crestview Station, work at Frost, and are a faster-than-typical walker.

This is not a case of "it doesn't benefit me so it sucks"; it's a case of "it benefits a trivial number of people, and a large fraction of the small number of possible beneficiaries don't even pay CM taxes (Cedar Park or people further out than Leander)". Oh, and, "it prevents us from building rail that will actually benefit Austin residents later on", to boot.

This is what happens, folks, when you care more about being friends, or maintaining access, than doing the right thing - you start to rationalize screwing Austin for a generation so you can say you sort of got a train running.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Until you identify yourself, I hope people will treat your attempts to undermine me as they deserve.

The 2000 MOS planned about a billion dollars, total. Half of that is $500M, total. Half is what the Feds have been matching lately. The amount CM's spent so far by some more realistic estimates than yours, plus the amount they want to spend on commuter rail, plus the amount they rebated in 1/4 cent money, is getting awfully close to that $500M. Period. Really simple.

You went to an awful lot of trouble to make 2000 LRT look a lot less feasible than it really was, for such an avowed fan of light rail, Lyndon.



There is a vanishingly small number of people who will see any benefit at all from commuter rail, as I've shown by comparing travel times to existing express bus service in blog posts such as this one.

To summarize that category of posts, basically, nobody closer in than the Leander station boardees will benefit from the Red Line, unless you live at Crestview Station, work at Frost, and are a faster-than-typical walker.

This is not a case of "it doesn't benefit me so it sucks"; it's a case of "it benefits a trivial number of people, and a large fraction of the small number of possible beneficiaries don't even pay CM taxes (Cedar Park or people further out than Leander)". Oh, and, "it prevents us from building rail that will actually benefit Austin residents later on", to boot.

This is what happens, folks, when you care more about being friends, or maintaining access, than doing the right thing - you start to rationalize screwing Austin for a generation so you can say you sort of got a train running.

According to Ben Wear http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/...-a-151580.html Cap Metro had saved around $200 Million for light rail. That is less than 20% local match for the line Scottilini posted.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by H2O

According to Ben Wear http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/...-a-151580.html Cap Metro had saved around $200 Million for light rail. That is less than 20% local match for the line Scottilini posted.

CM had $200M in reserves and was counting on using the 1/4 cent money for the rest of the local match, again, roughly $500M. Note that nowhere is it claimed they'd be able to write a check up front; the assumption was always that some bonding would have to be involved. SecretAgentMan has attempted to confuse people by presenting CURRENT LRT costs, many in areas arguably more expensive than what the 2000 LRT plan would have had to deal with, in answer to the theoretical "how far would the money blown on the Red Line have gone on the 2000 LRT plan" (implied "in 2000" in that counterfactual). Even his Austin examples are bogus - as he starts with the CURRENT (2010) estimates for the MOST EXPENSIVE parts of the city's urban rail project in an attempt to make 2000's LRT plan look less feasible.

At no point, by the way, did they assume they'd only have to come up with 20% local match; even with a Gore administration, they were operating under the assumption that they might have to go up to 50% to end up ahead of other applicants for the money. But, and here's an important point, the Feds liked the 2000 LRT plan quite a lot - and earlier conversations CM had with the Feds showed that the Feds thought even a double-tracked electrified Red Line would be completely worthless; utterly incapable of building ridership beyond the transit-dependent. Keep that in mind as you hear people like SAM and others claim that double-tracking the Red Line and running it more frequently makes it 'almost as good' as what we've lost; and, of course, any dollar spent on the Red Line cannot be spent on the city's urban rail project, which at least has a chance at attracting some new riders.

The prevailing wisdom has been that a project in Smart-Grown Austin, serving major trip generators like UT and the Capitol complex, supported by Cap Met's ample sales tax revenue, would be a slam dunk for a "highly recommended" rating. (Conversely, the original Red Line, which had far lower ridership and -- even though it was on existing rail right of way -- only marginally lower projected costs, was headed, Cap Met insiders say, for a "not recommended" kiss-of-death rating, which is why the transit authority switched tracks at the 11th hour.)

From this crackplog, referencing this Chron article

Key things to note again: Red Line, double-tracked and electrified, has only marginally lower projected costs but "far lower ridership". Since 2000, nothing has changed to make these contentions any less true; development continues to cluster along the 2000 LRT route, NOT the portions of the Red Line that leave that route.

[M1EK]

As to why this is still important, again, many people, including SecretAgentMan are arguing for further investment in the Red Line (double-tracking, electrification, more trains) and investment in the Elgin Line which shares the same exact liabilities as the Red Line. Every dollar spent there is a dollar that can't be spent on urban rail, and every dollar spent there just brings us UP to what the Feds thought back in 2000: almost as much cost as light rail, with far lower ridership.

[electricron]

The costs for the 2000 light rail plan were projections based upon a design that was never finished. Did it even get to 10%? I doubt it, because FRA "new starts" program wouldn't allow that until after the Environmental Impact Study had been completed.
So the costs for the 2000 light rail plan would have probably escalated like every other light rail project. A minimum of 2 years for the Draft EIS study report to be written. Another year would have been wasted for public comment and answering those comments on the Draft. Another year wasted waiting for FRA "new starts" approval, another year or two finalizing the design after getting FRA approval, and two and possibly more years building the light rail line. We're talking a minimum of 8 years at best. Late 2000 plus 8 equals late 2008.

The numbers SecretAgentMan reported are for light rail projects conceived about the same time, and completed around 2008. $50 to $60 Million per mile is what it costs to build light rail. Look at Hampton Roads Transit's "The Tide" light rail project that's just 7.4 miles in length. Just two years ago, the cost projection was $232 Million, last year the cost estimate rose to $288 Million, today the cost estimate is $328 Million, $96 Million higher than just two years ago. That's with significant savings for construction materials due to the recession. Imagine what the price tag would be if there wasn't a recession?

Source:http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/who-...ts-rising-tide

The idea that rail inexperienced CapMetro could have completed the light rail on time and on budget flys into the world of unreality. Being inexperienced like Hampton Roads, they may have seen similar costs of 50% overbudget too. The $1 Billion projection for the 2000 light rail plan could easily have been $1.5 Billion as the designs became finalized and as the construction bids came in.

Even rail experienced DART has new light rail projects that are over budget.
I'm not surprised CapMetro's commuter rail line is over budget too. Why are you?

Again I'll repeat, CapMetro's 2000 light rail plan election failed at the polls.
CapMetro's 2004 commuter rail plan election passed at the polls.
While there's always the possibility for securing FRA "new starts" funds, there's no actually guarantee you'll get any from this highly competitive program.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

CM had $200M in reserves and was counting on using the 1/4 cent money for the rest of the local match, again, roughly $500M. Note that nowhere is it claimed they'd be able to write a check up front; the assumption was always that some bonding would have to be involved. SecretAgentMan has attempted to confuse people by presenting CURRENT LRT costs, many in areas arguably more expensive than what the 2000 LRT plan would have had to deal with, in answer to the theoretical "how far would the money blown on the Red Line have gone on the 2000 LRT plan" (implied "in 2000" in that counterfactual). Even his Austin examples are bogus - as he starts with the CURRENT (2010) estimates for the MOST EXPENSIVE parts of the city's urban rail project in an attempt to make 2000's LRT plan look less feasible.

The 1/4 cent of sales tax collections beween 2001 and 2004 was roughly $110 M. They always relied on the 1/4 cent to some degree for operations, it didn't all go into reserves. With rising costs and falling revenue between 2004 and 2009, Cap Metro increasingly relied on the full tax allocation, and combined with spending on the capital program depleted the reserves instead of augmenting them. Can you show in Cap Metro's financial statements where your $500 M claim comes from, or are you just making it up?

My estimates for distances that the available money would have produced were conservatively based on what it has cost to build light rail projects over the past decade. In case you haven't figured it out yet, the 2000 LRT plan at over $1B and 20 miles works out to more than $50 M / mile.

It is possible that Cap Metro would have had to go back to voters in 2004 for bonding authority to build the 2000 LRT plan (had it been approved). The fact that they didn't include a bond election in 2000, suggests to me that they did not anticipate the need for bonding in 2000.

Again, I fully supported the 2000 LRT plan and wish history had turned out differently than it did, but it didn't. My point has always been that staying the course in 2004 was no longer realistic given changing political and economic circumstances. Let's stop crying over spilled milk and move on, please!

[SecretAgentMan]

If Cap Metro set aside $200 M for light rail between 1985 and 2000, that is roughly $13 M / year on average that was not needed for operating. If they refunded $110 M in 1/4 cent funds between 2001 - 2003, that is an average of $36 M / year. Effectively, their reserves would have been depleted by around $70 M, meaning they had only $130 M left for rail going into the 2004 election. An actual balance sheet might not show this, since the the 1/4 cent refund was not a cash transfer, rather a reimbursement as projects were completed, and the City is only now completing most of the 1/4 cent projects. If Cap Metro's accountants had set up a liability account for the 1/4 cent against the reserves, this would have been more obvious.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

The 1/4 cent of sales tax collections beween 2001 and 2004 was roughly $110 M. They always relied on the 1/4 cent to some degree for operations, it didn't all go into reserves. With rising costs and falling revenue between 2004 and 2009, Cap Metro increasingly relied on the full tax allocation, and combined with spending on the capital program depleted the reserves instead of augmenting them. Can you show in Cap Metro's financial statements where your $500 M claim comes from, or are you just making it up?

I don't accept homework assignments from anonymous posters whose only goal here is to undermine those who are not anonymous. I have showed that the amount blown on the Red Line + 1/4 cent money + amount they now want to spend on commuter rail is ROUGHLY $500M. I stand by that statement.

Again, I fully supported the 2000 LRT plan and wish history had turned out differently than it did, but it didn't. My point has always been that staying the course in 2004 was no longer realistic given changing political and economic circumstances. Let's stop crying over spilled milk and move on, please!

If only it were that simple - but the problem is, Lyndon, that you're out there insisting that spending a couple hundred more million on the Red Line double-tracking and electrifying it makes it "light rail" and implying that makes it worthwhile, when the Feds back in 2000 thought a double-tracked electrified Red Line was completely worthless.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I don't accept homework assignments from anonymous posters whose only goal here is to undermine those who are not anonymous. I have showed that the amount blown on the Red Line + 1/4 cent money + amount they now want to spend on commuter rail is ROUGHLY $500M. I stand by that statement.



If only it were that simple - but the problem is, Lyndon, that you're out there insisting that spending a couple hundred more million on the Red Line double-tracking and electrifying it makes it "light rail" and implying that makes it worthwhile, when the Feds back in 2000 thought a double-tracked electrified Red Line was completely worthless.

First of all, my name is not Lyndon Henry. As much as I respect Mr. Henry, I take that as an insult. I thought you had been warned about calling people names.

You can’t just add up those three amounts. They are apples and oranges. Suggesting otherwise is TRULY revisionist history. You argument was that Cap Metro could have the required $500 M local match if they did not spend that money.

The reality is that the 2000 LRT election failed. I wish that were not the case, but no amount of arguing on the internet is going to change that. The 1/4 cent refund program was a direct result of the 2000 failed vote. For the three years of the program, it cost Cap Metro roughly the same amount of money as they spent on the Red Line. Had they not taken a rail project that they could afford to voters in 2004, or if the plan was defeated again, the 1/4 cent program would have continued. If it continued until 2008 (or later), Cap Metro would have exhausted their reserves and it would have begun to cut into their bus operations. We KNOW this is true because they are now in that position already. The 1/4 cent money is already committed, and much of it spent. Cap Metro can’t even afford to reimburse the City as intended, and have to work on an extended payment schedule.

Cap Metro does not have any of it’s own money to invest into upgrades of the Red Line. They applied for Stimulus Funds, which does not require a local match. An upgrade of an existing line is closer to ‘shovel ready’ status than a major new engineering project would likely be. My understanding is that Cap Metro received only a portion of the requested funds, but the project remains in the draft CAMPO 2035 plan. It might take 25 years to fund it, but I hope that is not the case!

New Starts would probably not even be applicable, as it is intended for wholly new projects, not upgrades. There are actually more opportunities for Federal Funding open to existing projects, such as direct line items in upcoming Transportation Reauthorizations. A New Starts project would have to be at the Full Funding Agreement stage to be eligible for a direct line item.

This is why I think investing in upgrades to the Red Line makes sense:

We know that the Red Line has capacity limitations as long as it remains single track. By solving the capacity issues (and making other investments) we get closer to the where the 2000 MOS, if not the 52 mile / $2 B long range plan would be today.

By extending the Urban Rail project north to where it can connect to the Red Line, we largely replicate the 2000 MOS, if not the majority of the long range plan. With at least one transfer station south of McNeil (at Crestview, Metric, or somewhere near the Pickle Spur or 183), the same connections can be made with just one additional transfer for riders starting at McNeil / Howard. North of McNeil, riders would have had to transfer from car or bus to McNeil with the 2000 MOS, at least until LRT was extended all the way to Leander. Riders starting south of the transfer station (City of Austin residents) would have the same access as in 2000. This is dependent on a north expansion of Urban Rail being built to LRT standards (reserved guideway at least). Some of the initial segments of Urban Rail might not be totally reserved guideway, but any longer expansions such as Riverside or N. Lamar will need to be, to be effective.

New Starts metrics are not really applicable to this. Any Federal funding for the Urban Rail system will probably be funded trough Small Starts. There will likely be other more flexible programs put in place in the near future, and the rules for New Starts will likely be adjusted to be more flexible to new, more innovative delivery methods.

By the time a north extension of Urban Rail is completed (likely following an extension down Riverside to ABIA), and the Red Line is upgraded, we will be closer to the 52 mile long range plan than the 2000 MOS. Will it be as good? Perhaps not, but I think it is pretty close, and it realistically is as close as we will get. Obviously it will take longer than if the 2000 vote went differently, but there is nothing we can do about that now.

The Red Line was not intended to be equivalent to the 2000 MOS. It is was all Cap Metro could afford by 2004, and cost only 1/10th as much. Even if it takes investing another $300 M to get it to the point that it can partially replicate it’s function in the 52 mile long range plan, it is a bargain. At less than $15 M / mile, it completes 32 miles of the 52 for less than 1/4 the cost.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

First of all, my name is not Lyndon Henry. As much as I respect Mr. Henry, I take that as an insult. I thought you had been warned about calling people names.

Well, you won't identify yourself, and yet you keep attacking my credibility. It's left to me and the rest of us to guess who you are. My next guess would be Dave Dobbs, since those two are the originators of the "doubletrack the Red Line and run it more often and it's basically urban rail" meme.

As for the rest of your argument, it ignores the fact that people who drive to work today will be spectacularly UNwilling to accept a switch to a transit commute that requires a transfer (a 3-seat ride), even if the last portion of the ride is rail, even IF we can ever extend urban rail further up north, which, as shown in previous discussions, we can't - unless conditions change radically, and in most of those scenarios we wouldn't be able to afford the bill. This is the reason I suspect you're one of those insiders - because nobody who works in the private sector would think a plan which requires transfers from an infrequently running Red Line to a slow but possibly frequent urban rail line would be attractive to drivers.

But the real key, and this is important in identifying who the hell you really are, is that spending more money on the Red Line means the city's urban rail line will go wanting for local dollars - and probably even federal dollars. It's difficult to envision, even under an Obama DOT, a scenario in which both are fully funded - so at this point, anybody advocating further investment in the Red Line is, de facto, arguing against the city's urban rail plan.

Your 1/4 cent argument is also a misrepresentation - CM had to cut into bus operations because they are still giving back the 1/4 cent money and because they spent north of $130M on commuter rail, in the process lying about seeking federal funding for the commuter rail line. If commuter rail had lost in 2004, obviously they wouldn't have spent that money. It's also interesting to hear you so credulous now about them not seeking local funds for Red Line expansion (and the Elgin Green Line service) given this past history. Maybe I'll change my guess to John-Michael.

[wwmiv]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...=hp:mainpromo5

Format: They first ranked each city in terms of the traffic congestion at peak hours (the cities are listed in order of worst first). In the list they only identify the worst place of congestion in that city.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...=hp:mainpromo5

Format: They first ranked each city in terms of the traffic congestion at peak hours (the cities are listed in order of worst first). In the list they only identify the worst place of congestion in that city.

Cool! Austin makes another top 10 list. Right up there with LA and DC!

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Well, you won't identify yourself, and yet you keep attacking my credibility. It's left to me and the rest of us to guess who you are. My next guess would be Dave Dobbs, since those two are the originators of the "doubletrack the Red Line and run it more often and it's basically urban rail" meme.

As for the rest of your argument, it ignores the fact that people who drive to work today will be spectacularly UNwilling to accept a switch to a transit commute that requires a transfer (a 3-seat ride), even if the last portion of the ride is rail, even IF we can ever extend urban rail further up north, which, as shown in previous discussions, we can't - unless conditions change radically, and in most of those scenarios we wouldn't be able to afford the bill. This is the reason I suspect you're one of those insiders - because nobody who works in the private sector would think a plan which requires transfers from an infrequently running Red Line to a slow but possibly frequent urban rail line would be attractive to drivers.

But the real key, and this is important in identifying who the hell you really are, is that spending more money on the Red Line means the city's urban rail line will go wanting for local dollars - and probably even federal dollars. It's difficult to envision, even under an Obama DOT, a scenario in which both are fully funded - so at this point, anybody advocating further investment in the Red Line is, de facto, arguing against the city's urban rail plan.

Your 1/4 cent argument is also a misrepresentation - CM had to cut into bus operations because they are still giving back the 1/4 cent money and because they spent north of $130M on commuter rail, in the process lying about seeking federal funding for the commuter rail line. If commuter rail had lost in 2004, obviously they wouldn't have spent that money. It's also interesting to hear you so credulous now about them not seeking local funds for Red Line expansion (and the Elgin Green Line service) given this past history. Maybe I'll change my guess to John-Michael.

Your old arguments don't hold any longer. Urban Rail and Red Line upgrades don't have to compete if they are funded out of different programs.

New Transit-Funding Rules Make Streetcars More Desirable
By MELANIE TROTTMAN And JOSH MITCHELL
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration said it was revamping rules on federal transit funding to funnel more of the money to streetcars, bus routes and other projects that promote "livability."
The new policy announced Wednesday, part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to use transportation and housing programs to reduce driving, contain sprawl and create transit-related jobs, could lift the fortunes of makers of light-rail and other transit equipment sold to states and cities.
Bloomberg News A Denver Light Rail car is wired at a factory in Sacramento in October.


Among more than 80 cities that could now qualify for funding are Seattle; Cincinnati; Boise, Idaho; and Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D., Ore.), who led the push for a federal program designed to promote transit projects. Transit-industry officials said many projects had been stymied by a Bush administration policy requiring the government to evaluate projects based largely on reducing commuting times at the lowest possible expense.
HNTB Corp., an infrastructure firm that serves federal, state, and other clients, is working on a commuter-rail project in Indianapolis that could benefit from the change, said Liz Rao, the firm's national public-transit services chairwoman.
The company is also working with clients on high-speed rail lines in California that will be "major hubs" for communities, said Ms. Rao, who expects to see steel and rail-car makers and companies in the solar-power industry benefit from the change.
Chandra Brown, president of streetcar maker United Streetcar LLC in Clackamas, Ore., said the company has been working for years to get the funding formula reworked. The old "method was 'how do you move the most people the greatest distance in the quickest time,' but that's not necessarily indicative of the benefits," she said, adding that the change "makes sure projects get credit for being green."
United Streetcar, which typically sells streetcars for between $3 million and $4 million each, currently has about $50 million in streetcar orders, including six under contract with Portland, Ore., and seven with Tucson, Ariz., she said.
Of the 80 or so cities considering streetcar development, about a dozen are "very close" to actually implementing a system, she said. "This will trickle down to us, so we'll be hiring more welders and fitters and machinists and electricians that are going to be putting these cars together."
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who announced the policy change at a conference in Washington, said the shift would determine how the Federal Transit Administration awards some $2 billion a year in transit-construction funds. This money, awarded under a program known as "New Starts and Small Starts," is intended to help state and regional agencies build commuter rail, light rail, heavy rail and bus rapid-transit projects.
Mr. LaHood said the administration would immediately rescind the "budget restrictions" enacted by the Bush administration and focus on evaluating projects based on the environmental, community and economic-development benefits, as well as on congestion relief.
Jeff Rosen, a general counsel for the Department of Transportation during the Bush administration and now a partner in Washington law firm Kirkland & Ellis, said one danger of using noneconomic criteria was that it risked politicizing the process. "When jurisdictions are pushing to get their projects approved, if there are not clear economic criteria, there's more risk" that influential members of Congress will win favor, Mr. Rosen said. He also said that using criteria geared toward multiple "soft" objectives raised the risks of "achieving none of them."
Mr. Blumenauer said many cities are in varying stages of streetcar planning, but "nobody was applying [for the program] because they couldn't figure out how to make it work."
Portland, which managed to receive $75 million of funding under the program last year to expand its existing downtown streetcar, has generated significant new development alongside the streetcar, including retail space, housing and offices, said Mr. Blumenauer.
President Barack Obama has pushed agency heads to work together to encourage cities and suburbs to promote walking, biking and public transportation as alternatives to driving. Mr. Obama has called for the DOT and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, to coordinate plans for transit and housing projects so people can find jobs and housing closer to transportation hubs.
Under the new policy, some dollars that might have gone to projects that emphasized longer commutes, such as a rail line between major cities, could now be shifted to smaller local projects that serve more-compact areas.
Federal Transit Administration Chief Peter Rogoff cited the planned expansion of light-rail service in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area as an example of a project that could benefit. The FTA wants the plans for light-rail service between the Twin Cities to be altered so that lower-income, mostly minority communities between the cities have greater access to the line.
Write to Melanie Trottman at melanie.trottman@wsj.com and Josh Mitchell at joshua.mitchell@dowjones.com

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Your old arguments don't hold any longer. Urban Rail and Red Line upgrades don't have to compete if they are funded out of different programs.

You're reaching, big-time. Local money needs to be involved in the city's urban rail program - but Capital Metro has already spent about all the local money that would normally be available for transit capital projects. Additionally, there's little indication that this streetcar money will be large enough or go far enough to be a real alternative to the normal process.

Nice try, Dave.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

You're reaching, big-time. Local money needs to be involved in the city's urban rail program - but Capital Metro has already spent about all the local money that would normally be available for transit capital projects. Additionally, there's little indication that this streetcar money will be large enough or go far enough to be a real alternative to the normal process.

Nice try, Dave.

I disagree! What do you want, a rail system for low density areas, or a rail system for high density areas, or both?

Austin's high density neighborhoods are limited to its core area, Colorado River to the south, and University of Texas to the north. I suggest a streetcar line or two or three could handle Austin's high density neighborhoods. I also suggest commuter rail can handle Austin's commuters from its low density neighborhoods.

LIRR, an exclusively commuter rail on Long Island, New York, is the busiest commuter rail system in America, delivers 250,000 passengers daily into Pennsylvania station in Manhattan. Let's get real, there's no way, even in New York City, for there to be 250,000 jobs within a eight-mile or quarter-mile (walking distance) of Pennsylvania station. Most of those LIRR commuters transfer to New York City's subways. I haven't even mentioned the 150,000 New Jersey commuters terminating at Pennsylvania station yet. This proves lots of commuters will take transfers to get to work.

There's dozens of subway stations in Manhattan, but only two commuter rail stations. Even New York City is smart enough to not build subways 30 miles out into the suburbs. Why is it so wrong for Austin to build both commuter and light rail?

[wwmiv]

He advocates these things, but I don't really think he believes they are viable. The only viable option is an 'all of the above' expansion of freeways, downtown only streetcar, light-rail for central Austin (bounded by the four major freeways), and commuter rail for the outer suburbs.

[Myomi]

Originally Posted by electricron

I disagree! What do you want, a rail system for low density areas, or a rail system for high density areas, or both?

Austin's high density neighborhoods are limited to its core area, Colorado River to the south, and University of Texas to the north. I suggest a streetcar line or two or three could handle Austin's high density neighborhoods. I also suggest commuter rail can handle Austin's commuters from its low density neighborhoods.

LIRR, an exclusively commuter rail on Long Island, New York, is the busiest commuter rail system in America, delivers 250,000 passengers daily into Pennsylvania station in Manhattan. Let's get real, there's no way, even in New York City, for there to be 250,000 jobs within a eight-mile or quarter-mile (walking distance) of Pennsylvania station. Most of those LIRR commuters transfer to New York City's subways. I haven't even mentioned the 150,000 New Jersey commuters terminating at Pennsylvania station yet. This proves lots of commuters will take transfers to get to work.

There's dozens of subway stations in Manhattan, but only two commuter rail stations. Even New York City is smart enough to not build subways 30 miles out into the suburbs. Why is it so wrong for Austin to build both commuter and light rail?

All that proves is that commuters in New York are willing to wait on transfers to get to there destination. The follies of comparing New York city commuters to Austin commuters seems so numerous and obvious that I don't think I need to list them. I can't believe I have to say this but...Austin isn't New York. Commuters in New York have been using their subway for over 100 years, and mass transit in general for much longer. Austin commuters first need to be shown that mass transit works as a viable means of getting around downtown and the urban core before any suburban spurs are built. That's how many of the newer western cities have implemented successful mass transit. The problem with Austin is that it has decided to build a suburban network that has very little capacity and feeds into something that is a poor excuse for a downtown station.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by electricron

I disagree! What do you want, a rail system for low density areas, or a rail system for high density areas, or both?

In an area where driving is still cheap and relatively easy, it is transit suicide to build a line where essentially all passengers must transfer - even from rail to rail.

Those who keep bringing up cities like New York and Chicago need to read the "In an area" dependent clause. Perhaps tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids.

NONE of the cities that succeeded with LRT did this - each and every one of them built rail from the burbs (or the edge of the core) to the core right up the gut - a starter line that could function as both an urban circulator AND a suburban commuter line.

Austin, thanks to people like SecretAgentMan, has no choice but to ignore the Red Line and build LRT from the southeast instead. Note that every chance they get, the city is trying to distance themselves from the Red Line - not just because its implementation has been a disaster, but because most of the folks at the city are smart enough to know that you can't convince a current driver to switch to a 3-seat transit ride (car, train, train), ever.

[M1EK]

By the way, New York is also spending BILLIONS of dollars to move the LIRR terminus to Grand Central - because even in New York, even there, yes, even in New York, a lot of potential passengers aren't using the LIRR because of the transfer requirement for most passengers. The justification for going to GC is all about walking distance to offices (something like 70% versus 25% at Penn).

[PartyLine]

A refrence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commute..._North_America