AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[DoubleC]

Originally Posted by airwx

Here's the slides from a presentation in August for the downtown transit gateway. I'm curious about the green line shown in these.

In the renderings towards the end, I think I prefer the "ufo" plan.

I would love the greenline getting built. I won't be living at the same place by the time it gets built though. It'll really empty out 290 to the point that the 290 toll was a waste of money...WHICH, is why they aren't going to build it of course. There really hasn't been much traffic anymore on the 290 corridor from 130 to 35.

They could have spent those 290 tollway funds on a 183 tollway (I know), then build the greenrail to alleviate 290 traffic.

Just curious, I wonder if I may change anyone's perspective, but does anybody suppose that toll roads aren't that bad? The new roads we've been getting are expensive (and thus tolled, I think), but large and can easily be expanded in the future. On the other hand, they could have spent less money to build a smaller highway that couldn't easily be expanded in the future (for example, they could have built a 290 freeway on the grassy median that once existed, leaving everything else intact). Thoughts? I'm honestly still against tolls since it appears it's all we're getting promised, and there are /always/ means of getting funds. How else can Houston be getting a 3rd "loop" around the city? (see link below). Other states manage just fine without making new freeways toll roads (this statement is on thin ice lol).

http://www.utahburden.com/Blog/Grand-Parkway-Info

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by DoubleC

There really hasn't been much traffic anymore on the 290 corridor from 130 to 35.

Just wait. It'll come soon enough. The population of Manor quadrupled in the last 10 years.
<personal anecdotes> I've got friends building off of Harris Branch, friends who moved to Elgin and commute in. They do it because it's still affordable out there. </personal anecdotes>

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by DoubleC

I would love the greenline getting built. I won't be living at the same place by the time it gets built though. It'll really empty out 290 to the point that the 290 toll was a waste of money...WHICH, is why they aren't going to build it of course. There really hasn't been much traffic anymore on the 290 corridor from 130 to 35.

They could have spent those 290 tollway funds on a 183 tollway (I know), then build the greenrail to alleviate 290 traffic.

Just curious, I wonder if I may change anyone's perspective, but does anybody suppose that toll roads aren't that bad? The new roads we've been getting are expensive (and thus tolled, I think), but large and can easily be expanded in the future. On the other hand, they could have spent less money to build a smaller highway that couldn't easily be expanded in the future (for example, they could have built a 290 freeway on the grassy median that once existed, leaving everything else intact). Thoughts? I'm honestly still against tolls since it appears it's all we're getting promised, and there are /always/ means of getting funds. How else can Houston be getting a 3rd "loop" around the city? (see link below). Other states manage just fine without making new freeways toll roads (this statement is on thin ice lol).

http://www.utahburden.com/Blog/Grand-Parkway-Info

I think managed toll roads are a great way to ensure that only those who need to be driving and not using an alternate mode of transportation are using the roadways. Our current system subsidizes roads at the expense of other modes of transportation since there's only so much money to go around. If you make all major road expansion projects tolls, while also redirecting funds towards rail lines, buses, bike lanes, etc you start to address the bigger transportation issues.

[ivanwolf]

Originally Posted by DoubleC

I would love the greenline getting built. I won't be living at the same place by the time it gets built though. It'll really empty out 290 to the point that the 290 toll was a waste of money...WHICH, is why they aren't going to build it of course. There really hasn't been much traffic anymore on the 290 corridor from 130 to 35.

They could have spent those 290 tollway funds on a 183 tollway (I know), then build the greenrail to alleviate 290 traffic.

Just curious, I wonder if I may change anyone's perspective, but does anybody suppose that toll roads aren't that bad? The new roads we've been getting are expensive (and thus tolled, I think), but large and can easily be expanded in the future. On the other hand, they could have spent less money to build a smaller highway that couldn't easily be expanded in the future (for example, they could have built a 290 freeway on the grassy median that once existed, leaving everything else intact). Thoughts? I'm honestly still against tolls since it appears it's all we're getting promised, and there are /always/ means of getting funds. How else can Houston be getting a 3rd "loop" around the city? (see link below). Other states manage just fine without making new freeways toll roads (this statement is on thin ice lol).

http://www.utahburden.com/Blog/Grand-Parkway-Info

I used 290 toll twice and I live in Leander. Waze app told me to go 183A > 45 Toll > 130 Toll > 290 Toll. So what would have taken an hour down 183A/183/Mopac took 40min by taking the tolls into town. Yes it cost like $5+ in tolls but for time it was 80mph the whole way. It will get used more, 130 has increased use it seems and 290 will too i think.

[DoubleC]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

I used 290 toll twice and I live in Leander. Waze app told me to go 183A > 45 Toll > 130 Toll > 290 Toll. So what would have taken an hour down 183A/183/Mopac took 40min by taking the tolls into town. Yes it cost like $5+ in tolls but for time it was 80mph the whole way. It will get used more, 130 has increased use it seems and 290 will too i think.

If by $5+ you mean the gas money you indirectly spent by driving 80mph .

I take the 290 toll 1 out of 3 times that I pass through 290. I really wish they didn't toll the bridges as well. I wonder what else they'll come up with in the future.. heck, at the Eastbound terminus, people are charged again (same for the 183A toll at the Southern end). The connectors really do save a lot of time, so I always take them.

I wonder if I'm the only one who's frustrated that there's no 290W-35N connector, yet there's a connector going 290E-35S....seems like Austin is the only town I've been to that lacks connectors at major interchanges.

[cvalkan]

No. You're definitely not the only one.

[ohhey]

So early voting is going on now. Any thoughts on how the light rail proposal will fare this time?

Despite really wanting better transportation options in Austin, I ended up having to vote 'no' on this plan. I'm really disappointed, but the plan just sucks.

[lzppjb]

It wasn't on my ballot, but I would have voted No.

[LoneStarMike]

I voted no as well.

KUT.org had an interesting piece on all this.

Behind the Numbers: Austin's Billion-Dollar Rail and Roads Bond

Two interesting points:

How does the price tag of this bond stack up to previous bond elections?

It's the biggest ever. While only $600 million of the bond election is technically voter-approved for a starter light rail line, the other $400 million in improvements for state-managed roads is still debt that will be taken on by the city.

[SNIP]

So, $600 million for a starter light rail line and $400 million for state roads. If Prop 1 passes, does that mean that the billion dollars definitely gets spent?

There's two important caveats: one is that the $600 million for the first light rail line cannot be spent unless the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) comes forward with matching money. Austin would be one of dozens of projects in line seeking matching funds, and wouldn't be expected to apply for the funds for a few years.

The other caveat is that the $600 million for rail is tied to the $400 million for state road improvements. Unless the next city council issues that $400 million in debt for the road projects, the $600 million can't be spent on rail, according to the ballot language. If the incoming city council doesn't like that idea, or purposefully slows down the process for taking on that $400 million in debt, it could stall the proposed first light rail line. Many of the candidates for city council (61 of 70 for district seats) have said they are against the rail and roads bond proposition on the ballot this fall.

Considering most of the candidates for City Council are against Proposition 1, I could see them delaying or outright refusing to issue the $400 million debt for road improvements.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

I voted no as well.

KUT.org had an interesting piece on all this.

Behind the Numbers: Austin's Billion-Dollar Rail and Roads Bond

Two interesting points:



Considering most of the candidates for City Council are against Proposition 1, I could see them delaying or outright refusing to issue the $400 million debt for road improvements.

Inflation-adjusted, the 2006 bond was $670 million.

The city only has to provide $400M for roads. Any state or federal money they get reduces that number.
http://austin.twcnews.com/content/ne...llot-language/

[LoneStarMike]

^^Thanks. I have another concern about funding and it was alluded to in the Urban Rail Town Hall Meeting on KVUE.

It had to do with an article Ben Wear wrote (that was mostly behind the paywall) but I found it in it's entirety on another site

Austin, Texas To Seek Fed. Funding for Light Rail Project
10/20/2014
Austin American-Statesman

Match funding, according to public statements when the City Council set the ballot in early August, was understood to mean 50 percent of the project's overall cost.

So in other words, if the voters agree to kick in $600 million, then the feds have to kick in $600 million.

But based on a review of New Starts grants and projects waiting in line for approval, the federal transit agency has often offered grants well short of a one-for-one match. And the funding picture has been even darker for more expensive projects such as what Austin is contemplating, a federal transportation official told a congressional committee in late 2013.

"For the very largest projects, with total costs of $1 billion or more, the federal share has fallen even further, to an average of about 33 percent per project," testified Peter Rogoff , who was then the head of the Federal Transit Administration and is now the undersecretary for policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation .

Looking only at the 12 New Starts projects listed by the agency as having final deals with the transit administration, the cities or transit agencies building them received on average just over 40 percent of the total project costs.

So Austin , which would be hoping for $600 million or more of federal money to match the local contribution, might find itself several years from now looking to fill a financial void left by an insufficiently generous federal offer. Texas state government has so far mostly shied away from funding urban transit projects.

"We haven't gotten there," Keahey said. "But I would guess that if the funding level remains constrained, we would be encouraged (by the federal agency) to provide more than 50 percent."

If so, that could mean trouble for the project down the road. Business leaders who demanded that matching funds caveat in return for their public support of the proposition have made it very clear that they consider that a legally enforceable covenant with the voters. A shortfall in federal dollars and a resultant call for significantly more local funds could put the project in the courthouse.

"Anything less than 50 percent would not meet that condition," said Brian Cassidy , an Austin transportation lawyer and the Real Estate Council of Austin's vice president for regional infrastructure.

Of course if Prop 1 passes, we won't find out for another few years whether or not we'll get any federal matching funds and if so, how much. In the meantime, we'll be spending $50 - 70 million in environmental studies, detailed engineering and design, and other work just so we can apply for the federal funds.

To be fair, the article also noted

On the other hand, that requirement could work to Austin's advantage. Federal transit officials, the argument goes, might choose to give Austin the full 50 percent to avoid a legal tangle.

"It's possible that the requirement on the ballot could help the city secure a greater match from the feds, but that was not the intent," Cassidy said. "The intent was to solidify the commitment."

I guess that could be possible, assuming the FTA still exists, and with Congress one never knows.

I would hate to see us spend $50 to $70 million on initial studies and wait 3-4 years only to have the project derailed in the end.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

^^Thanks. I have another concern about funding and it was alluded to in the Urban Rail Town Hall Meeting on KVUE.

It had to do with an article Ben Wear wrote (that was mostly behind the paywall) but I found it in it's entirety on another site

Austin, Texas To Seek Fed. Funding for Light Rail Project
10/20/2014
Austin American-Statesman



So in other words, if the voters agree to kick in $600 million, then the feds have to kick in $600 million.



Of course if Prop 1 passes, we won't find out for another few years whether or not we'll get any federal matching funds and if so, how much. In the meantime, we'll be spending $50 - 70 million in environmental studies, detailed engineering and design, and other work just so we can apply for the federal funds.

To be fair, the article also noted



I guess that could be possible, assuming the FTA still exists, and with Congress one never knows.

I would hate to see us spend $50 to $70 million on initial studies and wait 3-4 years only to have the project derailed in the end.

Without knowing which 12 projects he was averaging, I can't comment in detail. I did find
http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304_14366.html

On that list, I found two around the same size as the proposed Austin system.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/NC_...file__2015.pdf
1.16 B
and
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/OR_...ofile_FY15.pdf
1.49B

each seems to have received the full 50% match commitment.

The larger projects that didn't get 50% seem to be in the range of
3B - 7B.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/NY_...ofile_FY15.pdf
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/VA_...ofile_FY15.pdf

[H2O]

I'll be voting yes. Whether you like the specific proposal or not, it is the last opportunity to build light rail in Austin for a generation. The last vote on rail was 10 years ago (14 for light rail). The next time will not be any sooner - and I believe even longer. The City is stepping up to finance the project because Cap Metro does not have the financial resources to do it alone. The 10 - 1 Council is much less likely to continue to support rail financially than the current Council if the community does not support it this time. That is why Leffingwell coined the phrase "Rail or Fail". This is probably the last chance in his lifetime, and probably many of ours as well.

[MightyYoda]

Originally Posted by H2O

I'll be voting yes. Whether you like the specific proposal or not, it is the last opportunity to build light rail in Austin for a generation. The last vote on rail was 10 years ago (14 for light rail). The next time will not be any sooner - and I believe even longer. The City is stepping up to finance the project because Cap Metro does not have the financial resources to do it alone. The 10 - 1 Council is much less likely to continue to support rail financially than the current Council if the community does not support it this time. That is why Leffingwell coined the phrase "Rail or Fail". This is probably the last chance in his lifetime, and probably many of ours as well.

I agree with this. You may not think it is the best plan (I agree), but you have to ask if you are willing to wait 20+ years for something else just to start rail?

[hookem]

I don't get to vote on this, but...

IMO, failure *must* be a consequence for poor planning and lack of regard for input from the public and rail advocates. If it's bad, it needs to be voted down. Otherwise, we'll have incompetents and political hacks running transportation in this city forever.

If you don't believe in the quality of the current plan, then why would you possibly believe that it would take 10+ years for another rail vote to happen? It's coming from the same people. If they're wrong about one thing, chances are they are wrong about the other.

There will still be rail advocates in Austin after this vote. There will still be a huge contingent of people who think rail is good, but this plan is a bad plan. And just imagine what would happen if a new plan comes up that they could actually agree on? Sure, 10-1 will be a different environment, but what if a new plan addresses more areas of Austin (like this one should)? I think you'd have a completely different result.

[IluvATX]

It's rather selfish to vote no on the platform of "I won't ride it" or "I don't like the route". We need rail to continue to be a prosperous city and many other cities of comparable size realize this. This may be our only chance to help alleviate traffiic for years to come. So before you refuse the rail vote, consider the city as a whole.

[ohhey]

Why is it selfish to vote against something I think will be ineffective? I fully support good urban rail projects, but I don't think we have good leaders behind this proposal, and I think this plan will have low ridership. Building this route could potentially do more harm than good. If rail is right for Austin, a new plan will materialize sooner than you might think.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

It's rather selfish to vote no on the platform of "I won't ride it" or "I don't like the route"...This may be our only chance to help alleviate traffiic for years to come. So before you refuse the rail vote, consider the city as a whole.

Tl; Dr: What you are saying makes almost no sense. If the entire city is paying for something, it better benefit most of them too. This proposal ignores the single densest area: West Campus/North campus. The main reason for including West Campus is to ensure our starting ridership is high so that future expansions can be more readily added.

---

The proposed route has some positives: it covers Riverside, the convention center, medical center, DKR Memorial Stadium, and the new ACC. And negatives: doesn't include the airport (coming later), doesn't include West Campus, routed through 1+ miles of untaxable UT land, and doesn't take advantage of existing investments in MetroRail.

But what I find frustrating is that a compromise, with alignment basically the same south of MLK with a Guadalupe/Lamar alignment north of MLK, would have worked really well for our city. This would have allowed for all the benefits of the proposed alignment (coverage of Riverside, convention center, medical center, and football stadium), while still including our densest area (West Campus).

The new urban rail + existing MetroRail could instead intersect at Lamar/Airport. The existing MetroRail could be realigned to include the domain, more of Highland mall plus Hancock OR Mueller. The new urban rail, along Lamar, could later be extended north to 183, Rundberg, Parmer, Braker, and I-35 if demand warranted it.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Tl; Dr: What you are saying makes almost no sense. If the entire city is paying for something, it better benefit most of them too. This proposal ignores the single densest area: West Campus/North campus. The main reason for including West Campus is to ensure our starting ridership is high so that future expansions can be more readily added.

---

The proposed route has some positives: it covers Riverside, the convention center, medical center, DKR Memorial Stadium, and the new ACC. And negatives: doesn't include the airport (coming later), doesn't include West Campus, routed through 1+ miles of untaxable UT land, and doesn't take advantage of existing investments in MetroRail.

But what I find frustrating is that a compromise, with alignment basically the same south of MLK with a Guadalupe/Lamar alignment north of MLK, would have worked really well for our city. This would have allowed for all the benefits of the proposed alignment (coverage of Riverside, convention center, medical center, and football stadium), while still including our densest area (West Campus).

...Assuming that residents of West Campus would be the key demographic for rail...

[KevinFromTexas]

I would imagine having a car in West Campus or anywhere around UT would suck. I've likened it to having a ball and chain around your ankle. Cars are fine for the suburbs I guess, but in an urban environment they're a PITA.