HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5161  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2016, 6:22 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
Novacek, I've already shown you that we are denser than Houston, ESPECIALLY along this route, I have also explained that UT students do not just go to class, UNO eliminated a lot of the need for the E Riverside bus to head to UT, that's about it. UT students have a lot more free time on their hands than most working professionals and believe it or not actually go to other parts of this city. As you posted just a few years ago the 1 captured more than 14,000 riders alone and was devastated by the "BRT" that was put in. I am not familiar with all of the routes since I don't ride the bus (would love to ride rail though) but you can see the 275 also uses Lamar and I have seen others on that stretch but I never looked at the numbers.
And if pulling numbers out of thin air makes someone a yahoo than I guess you just qualified yourself as such since you pulled 5k out of thin air. At least they are using actual documented data as created by the feds which predicted a much LESS dense corridor than we currently have. That said, I don't care if it is 10,000 or 20,000 boardings a day, that is enough to make it worth while and the start of a system that could actually make a dent in mode switch over the long term.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5162  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2016, 7:47 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
As you posted just a few years ago the 1 captured more than 14,000 riders alone and was devastated by the "BRT" that was put in.
In fall 2013 (immediately before metrorapid), the #1 had 12k daily riders.

It wasn't devastated, it was in-part replaced. The ridership was "devastated"* by massive fare increases.

* Where "devestated" here means a 2.8% decline on the combined 1/101/201 ridership (fall 2013 to spring 2014).


Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
I am not familiar with all of the routes since I don't ride the bus (would love to ride rail though) but you can see the 275 also uses Lamar and I have seen others on that stretch but I never looked at the numbers.
The 275 is a totally different section of Lamar. Any ridership the 275 gets couldn't possibly move over to this proposed 5.3 mile rail.




Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
And if pulling numbers out of thin air makes someone a yahoo than I guess you just qualified yourself as such since you pulled 5k out of thin air.
But I'm not proposing we spend 400-700 million dollars of taxpayer money based on my wild guesses*.

I'm the one saying we need to actually have professionals study the existing ridership and corridor before committing megabucks.


*And it's an informed wild guess. I'm trying to be reasonably generous, taking almost half of the current 12k, instead of taking 1/5 based on length.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
At least they are using actual documented data as created by the feds which predicted a much LESS dense corridor than we currently have.
Data for a 15 mile long system!

In 2025, based on 18 years of infill and development around light rail stations (so how can you claim "less dense than we currently have")?


Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
That said, I don't care if it is 10,000 or 20,000 boardings a day, that is enough to make it worth while and the start of a system that could actually make a dent in mode switch over the long term.
As I've said, I'd support Lamar light rail. I feel it would be a successful system (where successful here probably means on the order of 15k).

But it needs to be professionally designed.

And we absolutely need to get federal matching funds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5163  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2016, 8:46 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 nixcity View Post
Novacek, I've already shown you that we are denser than Houston, ESPECIALLY along this route,......

At least they are using actual documented data as created by the feds which predicted a much LESS dense corridor than we currently have.

That said, I don't care if it is 10,000 or 20,000 boardings a day, that is enough to make it worth while and the start of a system that could actually make a dent in mode switch over the long term.
It's already denser without having transit other than buses.

It's already denser than what planners assumed over a decade ago.

Why do we need to have a mode switch, it seems the area in question is already booming economically and doing just fine as is?

Wouldn't Austin be better off spending its limited financial resources in areas of the city that are not booming economically.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5164  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2016, 9:47 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
A short video about La Paz, Bolivia's gondola system.

https://www.facebook.com/ajplusengli...9584821516361/
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5165  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2016, 5:20 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 KevinFromTexas View Post
A short video about La Paz, Bolivia's gondola system.
La Paz aerial tramway or gondola consists of three lines today. The Red Line rises 1300 feet over a distance of 1.5 miles, taking 10 minutes to travel that distance. That's an average of 9 mph, with an average slope of 16%, or 1 foot vertical for every 6 feet horizontal. That's slightly too steep for an average streetcar or train to perform safely in a straight line. The road is very narrow and has many sharp curves. All three existing gondola lines are less than 2.5 miles in length, and they all climb very steep grades. Which is why an aerial tramways works here.

To put 1300 feet into perspective, that's taller than the Empire State Building, which is ranked the 21st tallest building in the world today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5166  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2016, 12:47 PM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
Another cool fact: La Paz is one of the highest cities in the world (I think the highest capital?). It sits between varying elevations of 10,000-13,500 feet above sea level. For comparison, Denver is at a bit over 5,000 feet.

I live at 8,000 feet in China and I get winded when I ride my bike sometimes (more used to it now). Just said that part to make it relevant to transportation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5167  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2016, 2:26 PM
_Matt _Matt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 400
I'm surprised there are no comments on the transportation bond on the ballot for November. Thoughts? https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...ion-bond-2016/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5168  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2016, 6:26 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
Yeah I have refrained from commenting due to my frustration with this council. That said, it will be one of the most important votes in the history of our city. This is assuming that this is the set and final proposal, they actually have until late into August to decide but this council is so ready for their vacation that they are pushing this forward earlier than I have seen a bond proposal be set before. As it stands I will vote against it, there are some decent parts to it but overall it is just more of the same. Adler has seemed like Trump in the buildup by calling these "smart" corridors and "go big", to me its quite belittling. There is nothing big about this except the price tag, to me (and many other urbanists, bike enthusiasts and such) this is basically more of the same with a bone thrown to those that truly want the Imagine Austin vision to come to fruition. Those that worked on the master plans for bikes and sidewalks have shown frustration as well after working so hard to put together a great plan that had a lot of momentum. We see it as mostly road pork and why, tell me why, must they keep lumping roads into a bond with actual transit??? However, people are so tired of bad traffic and doing nothing that this will probably pass in much the same way that the red line passed in 2004 (something is better than nothing approach). Also, Adler kept saying why not use the corridor plans, they just need to be dusted off from the shelf they have been sitting on. Well, guess what, the same could be said for the MOS rail plan that could actually help this city in a big way towards a true mode shift. I just wish we could break it up, have multiple bond options: 1)full bicycle master plan, 2)full sidewalk master plan, 3)corridor plans, and 4)the MOS rail alignment. Let the city decides what it likes the most. My 2 cents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5169  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2016, 6:31 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
2 more cents to throw in, Casar pushed for a more transit friendly bond then went silent on the deal, I'm guessing there was some behind closed doors talks that led to that, I can only hope that it is for a trade off for more transit (rail) in 2018. Also, they are touting a poll they did that said Austinites want this plan, what they fail to say in the report is that well over 90% of those polled were over 40, oops. This just smells bad for so many reasons. Rail enthusiasts have been begging the city to do research on specifically why the 2014 bond failed and they kept balking and saying that Austinites don't want rail but FINALLY a city rep admitted (in an effing article in VIRGINIA, not the Statesman, not the Chronicle, not even the Monitor) that it was ON THE WRONG ROUTE!!!!
http://pilotonline.com/news/local/co...75af8465d.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5170  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2016, 2:42 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Also, Adler kept saying why not use the corridor plans, they just need to be dusted off from the shelf they have been sitting on. Well, guess what, the same could be said for the MOS rail plan that could actually help this city in a big way towards a true mode shift.
.
not in the slightest.

The corridor plans are current, within the past couple of years. They literally _just_ finished the Guadalupe plan.

In contrast, there is no "MOS" plan and analysis. There's a line on the map and a couple of number they've _admitted_ they just made up.

Or for the 2000 light rail plan, it's approaching 20 years old and is in no way current or up to date (and no one is actually pushing for it anymore, and it's not financially feasible, if it ever was).
And even that was never up to the level of planning of the corridor plans. Quick, what was the proposed 2000 light rail profile through the drag?


Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
I just wish we could break it up, have multiple bond options: 1)full bicycle master plan, 2)full sidewalk master plan, 3)corridor plans, and 4)the MOS rail alignment. Let the city decides what it likes the most. My 2 cents.
Now there's a way to split the vote and get status quo (nothing). Or possibly worse, just (5) the surburban roads.

Or what happens if all of those bonds pass (including the MOS "plan" with no price tag).

Are you aware the full sidewalk plan is over a billion and well beyond any proposed tax increase?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5171  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2016, 3:54 PM
_Matt _Matt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 400
These corridors provide for increased density, which is what is needed for successful rail. 90+% of Austinites have no use for streetcar style rail because of the last mile problem. This helps increase the density so streetcar rail might make sense someday.

Light rail expansions would be helpful but it's hard to get the core excited about that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5172  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2016, 4:33 PM
hereinaustin hereinaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Matt View Post
These corridors provide for increased density, which is what is needed for successful rail. 90+% of Austinites have no use for streetcar style rail because of the last mile problem. This helps increase the density so streetcar rail might make sense someday.

Light rail expansions would be helpful but it's hard to get the core excited about that.
True. Plus, I think some of the corridor plans even have complete separation of bus traffic. This could definitely make adding in rail in those corridors more feasible later on.

I could imagine, if the city does this right, that we could have "West Campus-like" density along these corridors. That could really push Austin forward in terms of travel mode-shift and it could reduce the strain on the other, larger roadways (I-35, Mopac).

My only problem with the bond plan is the $111M for FM 969. I would rather see that money used to add a dedicated bus lane along N and S Lamar, Burnet Rd, and for MLK between I-35 and 183 (this segment hasn't had a corridor study yet). I would also like to see the bike lanes on N and S Lamar and Burnet Rd separated from the rest of the traffic like what is proposed for Airport Blvd:

Last edited by hereinaustin; Jul 7, 2016 at 4:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5173  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2016, 5:49 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereinaustin View Post
My only problem with the bond plan is the $111M for FM 969.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hereinaustin View Post
I would rather see that money used to add a dedicated bus lane along N and S Lamar, Burnet Rd, and for MLK between I-35 and 183 (this segment hasn't had a corridor study yet). I would also like to see the bike lanes on N and S Lamar and Burnet Rd separated from the rest of the traffic like what is proposed for Airport Blvd:
The issue is one of width. That section of airport has 120' of RoW. Portions of N Lamar are 100. S Lamar is 80'.
There's not room to do dedicated transit lanes, and separated paths, and keep the same number of vehicle lanes (which seems like a battle they're not willing to fight except for Guadalupe). Not without taking adjacent land.

The one comparable is Burnet north of 183, with BRT lanes. And even then they're not fitting it all within the existing RoW. They're depending on getting easements (maybe they think that's more feasible since it's not nearly as built up, and UT is one of the main landowners).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5174  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2016, 5:51 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 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.
Yes. This. We're finally starting to plan for the growth we're having w/r/t roads, rather than trying to play catch up. It is smart for a dual focus on areas that are likely to see growth and the areas that need to play catch up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5175  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2016, 7:30 PM
LiveattheOasis LiveattheOasis is offline
Bollywood Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Zilker
Posts: 258
For Immediate Release: June 14, 2016

Subject
Prepared Statement Supporting a Light Rail Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) on the November Ballot

Contact
Scott Morris, Central Austin CDC Director, 512-371-7961 smorris@centralaustincdc.org
Andrew Clements, Central Austin CDC Director, 512-783-6027 andrewwclements@gmail.com


Today, the Austin City Council Mobility Committee heard proposals for transportation projects for consideration on the November ballot. Several citizens testified in support of light rail. The following is a light rail system proposal and a prepared statement delivered as testimony to the Austin City Council Mobility Committee.


Cars don't fill jobs. Cars don't use our parks, cars don’t attend school, or conduct business transactions. People do these things. Transportation success is measured in moving people, not in moving their cars. Rail offers the greatest capacity for moving people, surpassing any other mode for its cost effectiveness, capacity and throughput, against any other method, proven or unproven.

Our proposal for a light rail minimum operable segment is based on several decades' worth of planning and discussion, neighborhood planning ordinances, and over $20 million in federally funded transit studies. They have arrived at a singular conclusion: Guadalupe-North Lamar would be a great place for a light rail investment. It would be the next step in Austin's utilization of rail, and would cost-effectively serve a corridor with the highest transit ridership, the highest population density, and the highest employment density of any other corridor in the city.

One of those studies was done for the FTA in 2000. That light rail plan used the same footprint in our proposal, plus track to McNeil. But ours goes farther, connecting 23 additional miles of existing MetroRail, providing Red Line passengers from East Austin and Northwest Austin a light rail transfer to 145,000 jobs in the Guadalupe-North Lamar Corridor.

But, this is just the next step. Our system concept extends light rail to destinations like East Riverside, South Lamar, North Lamar, and to the Airport. It delivers social equity by providing areas of high transit dependency like Rundberg and Dove Springs with access to jobs. It builds and operates extensions in SE Austin toward the Airport with the hotel occupancy tax. This proposal returns a very high ROI and connects people to economic opportunity.

There is strong support for moving forward with rail transit. Zandan polling in 2015 showed 66% support rail mass transit, as well as the taxes to pay for those projects. That is a 23-point swing from the defeat of Project Connect. We only need a 7-point change to pass a bond measure.

But, the people also need your leadership. In this Year of Mobility, we need public transit and proven mobility alternatives on the ballot.

We feel that the people of Austin are ready to take this step. Voters deserve that choice in November.

Thank you very much.


Who We Are

The Central Austin CDC has been privileged to serve as a community organizer at a most unique time in our city's history. Over the last four years, we have engaged the public to work on an issue of utmost importance: planning for Austin's first phase investment of light rail. This work has empowered a diverse coalition of communities, non-profit groups, transit professionals, and light rail advocates. A consensus vision has emerged from this grassroots process for a north-south, expandable backbone of light rail service in the Guadalupe-North Lamar Corridor.
__________________
I can feel it coming back again ...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5176  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2016, 7:44 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveattheOasis View Post
It builds and operates extensions in SE Austin toward the Airport with the hotel occupancy tax.
I'm pretty sure this is illegal.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/TX.351.htm


Which is why we need experts to plan systems like these.

"Sec. 351.110. ALLOCATION OF REVENUE FOR CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a municipality may use the revenue derived from the tax imposed under this chapter for a transportation system to transport tourists from hotels in and near the municipality to:
(1) the commercial center of the municipality;
(2) a convention center in the municipality;
(3) other hotels in or near the municipality; and
(4) tourist attractions in or near the municipality.
(b) The transportation system that transports tourists as described by Subsection (a) may be:
(1) owned and operated by the municipality; or
(2) privately owned and operated but partially financed by the municipality.
(c) This section does not authorize the use of revenue derived from the tax imposed under this chapter for a transportation system that serves the general public other than for a system that transports tourists as described by Subsection (a)."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5177  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2016, 11:32 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
I'm pretty sure this is illegal.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/TX.351.htm


Which is why we need experts to plan systems like these.

"Sec. 351.110. ALLOCATION OF REVENUE FOR CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a municipality may use the revenue derived from the tax imposed under this chapter for a transportation system to transport tourists from hotels in and near the municipality to:
(1) the commercial center of the municipality;
(2) a convention center in the municipality;
(3) other hotels in or near the municipality; and
(4) tourist attractions in or near the municipality.
(b) The transportation system that transports tourists as described by Subsection (a) may be:
(1) owned and operated by the municipality; or
(2) privately owned and operated but partially financed by the municipality.
(c) This section does not authorize the use of revenue derived from the tax imposed under this chapter for a transportation system that serves the general public other than for a system that transports tourists as described by Subsection (a)."
Just spit-balling here, but could it be argued that only the extension to the airport is being funded by the hotel tax, thus it's for tourists and not the general public?

I don't know how they could make that work. Only have 1 loading point (ABIA) on the extension that is paid for by the hotel tax? That way they could argue that it's only for visitors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5178  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 12:42 AM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
^yes, as confirmed by a few city officials that work with HOT a few months ago. As you see in the wording it does not say moving ONLY tourists. What kind of transportation system moves only tourists? More comments later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5179  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 2:06 AM
paul78701 paul78701 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,184
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5180  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 12:14 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
Just spit-balling here, but could it be argued that only the extension to the airport is being funded by the hotel tax, thus it's for tourists and not the general public?
.
But you couldn't even run it to the airport (terminal). You'd have to run it to the Hilton.

The statute is very explicit. Hotels, not airports.
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 4:00 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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