HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2020, 1:26 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
a crosstown streetcar on say 7th would make a lot of sense

Austin is basically Vegas for college educated 20 somethings these days, tourism is booming; it’s embarrassing that the city has no streetcar to at least funnel conventioneers around
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2020, 2:03 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Why not a transit way in the alley between Colorado and Congress instead? Could tunnel underneath the capitol grounds I suppose (which is probably relatively cheap as long as you don't go underneath the capitol). 4th street could be a transitway too?

A subway is probably much too expensive for the expected ridership in Austin...
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2020, 5:39 AM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
The usefulness of a bus route is crippled when they have to drive in the same traffic congestion as cars. BRT requires widening streets or reducing car lanes and often both, which in the downtown area is difficult to do in both an engineering and a political sense. The places where transit needs to go in central Austin don't have existing corridors where you can have room for seperate right of way at grade.
The busiest remaining bus corridor in Calgary has no separation for buses though; it's just a 4 lane mixed-traffic road that goes into downtown with one lane reversed during peak hours. The BRT routes on it are just glorified express buses that only get a queue jump at certain intersections and signalling priority. Here's a section of that corridor about 1 mile north of downtown:



But it's still capable of carrying more than 30K riders per day with peaks of 80-90 (many of them articulated) buses per hour.

Quote:
The purpose of LRT in Austin is to create a high-speed central spine. The rest of the network proposed will be BRT or enhanced local bus service on major streets to feed into it.
If we look at Calgary again, the LRT lines were developed based on a express bus service central spine. Calgary Transit released an article in 2006 that discussed some of the lessons learned. Two of them relate to the benefits of having a solid bus routes, corridors and ridership to build upon for LRT. The early lines also cheapened on things as much as possible in order to increase its reach; a lesson forgotten recently where the proposed Green Line has exploded in cost by $3-$4B with disastrous consequences.



https://www.calgarytransit.com/sites...rb_revised.pdf

Quote:
Capital Metro still runs a local bus system based on a 1990s paradigm when the city was small and downtown was tiny and the purpose of transit was just to give poor people and students a basic means of getting around only.
But its operating budget is pretty big:



By comparison (and even ignoring the exchange rate), Calgary isn't much bigger ($428M, with 48% fare recovery) despite 5X the total ridership (and more than 2X the bus ridership). How does Capital Metro (and other Texas transit agencies) spend so much for so little to show for it?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2020, 5:40 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Has the mixed bus/light rail tunnel in Seattle been successful? It seems like a great idea to allow buses and light rail to share a tunnel, especially for a city that needs to grow feeder bus service but faces a lot of surface level congestion like Austin.
It's now rail only. A new line to the eastern suburbs will share the tunnel, and it being built now including tunnel revisions. Combined there will be trains every three minutes, with no room for buses.

When buses and rail were shared, it worked, but not perfectly. Trains were slower because buses are slower, particularly because of wheelchairs.

As a bus tunnel (originally just buses) it was far more expensive than it would need to be for rail only. Stations are I'd guess around 32 feet curb to curb including a passing lane, and 60' total station width. For rail alone they can probably be 20 feet for the trains. Just guessing here. Plus they can more easily do center platforms, reducing total platform space. In our case, the added width meant exponentially more difficult construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2020, 6:09 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
Subway

https://www.facebook.com/capitalmetr...type=3&theater
Quote:
Austin Underground: Republic Square Station, Transit Tunnel – This underground station would be climate controlled and include art installations, digital info centers and comfy seating. People could enjoy convenient shops, food vendors and wi-fi. Customers boarding can make connections on Orange and Blue light rail lines running as frequently as every 5 minutes. People will also be able to connect into the local #MetroBus network and the Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit from the station. Agents at the CapMetro transit store serve customers with transit info and sell tickets for all services. The underground tunnel separates Light Rail from downtown traffic, allowing LRT vehicles to move faster, safer and more reliably through the downtown corridor. Light rail on the Orange and Blue lines will use the 1.6-mile tunnel, with multiple underground stations featuring enhanced amenities.


https://www.facebook.com/capitalmetr...type=3&theater

-

https://www.facebook.com/capitalmetr...type=3&theater
Quote:
Regional Transportation Center – This facility would link to all services in the transit network, including other transit providers like CARTS or Mega Bus. The property could include space for mixed-use retail and housing, art displays, public restrooms, electric vehicle charging and a parking garage to serve more park and ride customers.

https://www.facebook.com/capitalmetr...type=3&theater

-

https://www.facebook.com/capitalmetr...type=3&theater
Quote:
Park & Ride Expansion and Improvements – 14 new Park & Rides with improved connection options and amenities. People can drive or bike to a lot and seamlessly catch transit. Some locations would include electric vehicle charging. Enhanced customer amenities include food vendors, charging for electric vehicles and rental access to bikes, scooters and other new multi-modal transportation choices. Ample shade and seating add a greater level of comfort, and public art installations will elevate community placemaking.

https://www.facebook.com/capitalmetr...type=3&theater

-

https://www.facebook.com/capitalmetr...type=3&theater
Quote:
Recommended Orange and Blue Lines – The Orange Line would be Light Rail from North Lamar Transit Center (183 & N. Lamar) along the North Lamar/Guadalupe corridor, UT campus, downtown to Lady Bird Lake and along South Congress to Stassney Lane. The 801 #MetroRapid bus service would be converted to LRT as resources become available, approximately in the 2040s. The Blue Line would be Light Rail to and from Austin-Bergstrom International Airport along East Riverside Drive, across Lady Bird Lake to the Convention Center and west along 4th Street to Republic Square.

https://www.facebook.com/capitalmetr...type=3&theater

-

https://www.facebook.com/capitalmetr...type=3&theater
Quote:
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) – High-capacity transit vehicles accommodating up to four times more passengers per trip operating in a transitway free from street traffic, moving more people faster, safe and more reliably. #CapMetro is committed to a cleaner future with an entire zero emissions fleet. Both BRT and LRT vehicles will have all door boarding, and new features would include interior bike racks, on-board digital information centers, free wi-fi, mobile device charging and automatic wheelchair securement (BRT only). A new Gold Line would be Bus Rapid Transit from ACC Highland campus through downtown to the Convention Center and Republic Square.


https://www.facebook.com/capitalmetr...type=3&theater
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2020, 6:41 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
Austin's metro population is doubling every 20 years. It's now 2 million and change. The 2000 rail plan was shot down. To wait another 20 years or to have this plan shot down could mean we'd be a metro of 4 million in 2040 with no rail. It's not like these projects happen overnight either, especially not a subway.

This is Guadalupe. It looks tame here, but most days the traffic backed up block to block on all three lanes. The 4th lane is a dedicated bus lane. The subway plan would have it going under Guadalupe with a stop at Republic Square Park at 4th & Guadalupe.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2707...7i13312!8i6656
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2020, 8:45 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
I am excited for Austin and genuinely hope this plan will overcome the inevitable Charles Koch-funded opposition. Being in the 2020 general election ballot will help.

If a city as conservative as Phoenix can build a light rail system (and Houston/Dallas, to boot) then Austin should be able to do it. The downtown subway will definitely eliminate what could be a very slow section of track, which is an issue in Portland, Houston, and other systems, and sets up the system for future branches, extensions, and frequency upgrades.

I'm a little concerned that the streets proposed for light rail simply aren't wide enough for dedicated lanes, and this will be watered down to a mixed-traffic streetcar when drivers and business owners complain about losing lanes. The downtown tunnel only goes up to the UT campus at MLK, but Guadalupe is pretty narrow for miles after that. There's also just basic questions of neighborhood conditions - how do you get people to walk to stations when many neighborhoods don't even have sidewalks?
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2020, 9:31 PM
cabasse's Avatar
cabasse cabasse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: atalanta
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by N90 View Post
Really? So Austin should have started this when it was a metro area of just 1 million? Sounds ridiculous.

It wouldn't have the critical mass or density in the core to support it back then. Right now is a good time to get started on it because it now has more of the critical mass, traffic, core area density, and road strain to support something like this.

cough *calgary*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2020, 6:39 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabasse View Post
cough *calgary*
Transit in Calgary in 1980, before it finished building LRT, had around 50 million linked trips annually, which is around 75 million unlinked trips, around 2.5 times higher than Austin has today.

Calgary's ridership has doubled since 1981, it's population has also doubled since 1981. Calgary's transit ridership has not grown any faster as the result of LRT. Calgary built LRT because the ridership was already high, too high for buses, not because it was low. Their ridership was already growing very well before it built LRT, 25 percent from 1975 to 1980, from 39 million to 50 million. The ridership actually fell significantly immediately after it built LRT, from around 53 million 1981 to 44 million in 1984 (recession). Calgary's ridership did not return to its 1981 peak until the 90s.

Looking at those budget figures highlights what is the real problem with transit in Austin: lack of fare revenue. $28 million from fares? 10% cost recovery?

Capital Metro fare: $1.25
Calgary Transit fare: $3.50

THAT is the real difference between transit in Austin and transit in Calgary. Not LRT, but the fares. No matter how much LRT it builds, Austin will never be able to provide good transit by charging $1.25 fares.

So many people from US on this forum say Canadians use transit more because incomes are lower. But reality is that transit in Canada costs 2 times more. You can see also all the high ridership systems in US also charge 2 times more than typical systems like Austin. Without that fare revenue, a system will not have funds to provide enough service to attract riders. And ultimately the amount of service is what really matters, not the amount of rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2020, 7:25 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
Amount of service is what requires nuance. In Austin you can't put transit in car traffic because you lose the value moving faster than traffic does. And you can't take a traffic lane away as its still a car culture and you wan't get votes needed for transit funding. Whether bus or rail it needs to grade separate - that means elevated or sunk/subway. Those are the only 2 options for viable transit in austin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2020, 7:46 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
We can't charge a lot in the USA, haven't you heard? In fact, there is a movement to make transit "free." Everything has to be debated within an "equity framework."

As long as one person can't afford an increase, it ain't gonna happen(hyperbole, obviously, but my point stands).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2020, 9:17 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Serious question, are all the stations going to have the doors like in that fancy rendering? If so, AWESOME(plus a guarantee of some good AC)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2020, 10:09 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,701
Wait, am I an idiot, did I read the numbers wrong? $22.5 million fare revenue? Not $28 million? It just reinforces my point even further.

It's odd USA has much more socialist mentality than Canada, the transit fares have to be super low in US while in Canada transit gets much less subsidy and riders are forced to pay closer to the actual cost (50-70%). I think the "equity framework" is a large part of why the ridership is so much lower in US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATXboom View Post
Amount of service is what requires nuance. In Austin you can't put transit in car traffic because you lose the value moving faster than traffic does. And you can't take a traffic lane away as its still a car culture and you wan't get votes needed for transit funding. Whether bus or rail it needs to grade separate - that means elevated or sunk/subway. Those are the only 2 options for viable transit in austin.
Grade separation is only needed for extremely narrow corridors or high ridership lines with very high frequencies, so transit doesn't intefere with regular traffic. Otherwise what benefit does grade separation provide?

Transit needs to be built one step at a time. Building subway or elevated rail is skipping at least two major steps. Not successful with regular bus, BRT, or light rail yet but now it's time for elevated rail or subway? I don't see any nuance in that approach. Nuance means building up the system and the ridership gradually, and it's hard to do that with $1.25 fares and throwing billions into subway construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 12:40 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Socialist mentality isn't evidenced by having a separate crappy service only provided to (or at least appealing to) poor people. It's public services used by diverse class levels and that is accessible to everyone not because it's underfunded but because wealth inequality isn't allowed to get so extreme. The crappy service only provided for the sake of poor people is the capitalist model.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 12:57 AM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,028
I interpret Doady's socialist comment as that Americans are more willing to fund transit agencies and projects that require more public funding of costs than in Canada; where agencies and projects are expected to have decent fare box recovery and return on investment (in terms of ridership).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 1:32 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Serious question, are all the stations going to have the doors like in that fancy rendering? If so, AWESOME(plus a guarantee of some good AC)
It's too early to say, but I highly doubt any above-ground stations would be fully enclosed like this. If any, it will only be the underground stations - but even that seems iffy to me.

Typically platform doors are installed on fully automated, fully grade-separated lines... which is why we only see them in the US on airport trains (and, soon, on the Honolulu Metro).

It's not impossible to install platform doors on a manually-operated line, but it is very difficult for the train operator to consistently line up the train doors with the platform doors every time. If you have extra space to work with, you can put a few feet of platform outside the doors, but in a subway station every extra foot of width costs millions, and in the middle of a busy road, wider platforms can mean seizing land from homeowners and businesses.

It does seem like the Dubai Tram has solved this technological problem, using a partial automated system to control braking at stations such that the doors line up every time. But I don't know if such a system would meet US regulations, which are always a huge challenge when bringing foreign transit techniques to this country. This required an expensive CBTC system which may be too much for Austin to afford - the juice may not be worth the squeeze.

Of course, the trains pictured also appear to be wireless, which is another expensive system that is untested in the US (either battery-powered or underground transmission).
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Mar 10, 2020 at 1:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 1:40 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
Socialist mentality isn't evidenced by having a separate crappy service only provided to (or at least appealing to) poor people. It's public services used by diverse class levels and that is accessible to everyone not because it's underfunded but because wealth inequality isn't allowed to get so extreme. The crappy service only provided for the sake of poor people is the capitalist model.
It is socialist in that service is being provided at a price that only covers a tiny portion of the cost. The service is mostly covered by the taxpayer.

The service is designed as a social service, rather than trying to attract a wider portion of the public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 2:35 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
But that's not how socialist societies works. That would be services that cover everyone (or at least a majority) using subsidies rather than just a small safety net used as a last resort by the desperate while everyone else uses privatized solutions. Every society has some subsidized services - even the least socialist. something should only been seen as characteristically socialist if they're mainstream rather than last resort safety nets. The police and fire services would be examples of socialist services for instance. And in actual socialist societies these services are not chronically underfunded since they're supported by the majority since the majority uses them. Underfunded services that are desperate for new revenue since the subsidies are insufficient are not characteristic of socialist societies.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.

Last edited by Nouvellecosse; Aug 7, 2020 at 12:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 2:39 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
Subsidized does not equal Socialized. If that were true the domestic fossil fuel industry, automobile industry and both the single family home builders and the future occupants would be "socialist mentality."
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 4:24 AM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,701
I was just trying to say that if they want to design a transit system that is more than a service for poor people, it needs to be reflected in the fares. I was trying to do it in a light-hearted way and humour is not my strength. I didn't mean to distract from the topic. That's my fault, sorry about that. I'm an idiot, please forget I said it like that.
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 > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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