Austin's $10 Billion Expanded Rail with Subway Plan Approved

[electricron]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Spot on, this rail system Austin is thinking about and executing is akin to Portland's MAX in the way it is described and advocated for. In addition, the costs for a starter system if done right will lead to a more expansive system to serve the needs of the region.

I was thinking more akin to Houston's Metro over Portland's Max, street running all the way in dedicated lanes.
Austin voters approved a tax rate increase to help finance Project Connect in 2020. The cost was estimated to be nearly $7.1 billion, but inflation has led those estimates to balloon past $11 billion since the election.
The construction cost if the new surface level 9.8 mile lines is expected to range between $4.5 billion and $4.8 billion, made up of a mix of local and federal dollars. So by shortening the light rail lines and running through downtown Austin at grade, they cut the construction and financing costs in half.
Without future extensions, this would be the next to shortest light rail line in the USA excluding streetcars. Only the Norfolk Tide line would be shorter. Ridership numbers for the various light rail systems in the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

[goat314]

That cost is insane to me, especially for street running light rail. St. Louis is planning a street running extension that will be like 7 miles for about $800M. I have no idea why this line costs so much. I would think maybe 1.2-1.3B max.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by electricron

I was thinking more akin to Houston's Metro over Portland's Max, street running all the way in dedicated lanes.
Austin voters approved a tax rate increase to help finance Project Connect in 2020. The cost was estimated to be nearly $7.1 billion, but inflation has led those estimates to balloon past $11 billion since the election.
The construction cost if the new surface level 9.8 mile lines is expected to range between $4.5 billion and $4.8 billion, made up of a mix of local and federal dollars. So by shortening the light rail lines and running through downtown Austin at grade, they cut the construction and financing costs in half.
Without future extensions, this would be the next to shortest light rail line in the USA excluding streetcars. Only the Norfolk Tide line would be shorter. Ridership numbers for the various light rail systems in the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

This is Portland MAX in its land use and urbanism approach to the arterial alignment of the Light Rail for Austin Connect. Which is the guide Houston has continue to carry with in its system.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by electricron

Austin voters approved a tax rate increase to help finance Project Connect in 2020. The cost was estimated to be nearly $7.1 billion, but inflation has led those estimates to balloon past $11 billion since the election.

It's more believable that the pre-measure cost estimate was never really $7.1 billion than it is inflation has added $4 billion to it. That's like a 40% increase.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

It's more believable that the pre-measure cost estimate was never really $7.1 billion than it is inflation has added $4 billion to it.

Inflation rates in the last TWO or THREE years have not increased 40%.
To win the earlier referendum, pundits under estimated what the light rail tunnels would cost. The public-private funding agreement funding was limited to $7.1 Billion tops, and when they started planning the projected costs skyrocketed, cuts had to be made because there are no more local funding available. And that is with a property tax increase and the half cent sales tax as funding sources. They still need or are hoping for FTA contribution of New Starts funding at 50%. The FTA rarely forks up more money on projects coming in over budget. Look at Honolulu's over budget Skyline metro as the most recent example as verification of FTA's reluctance to fork up additional funds.

Never-the-less, Austin's light rail plan is now realistically affordable. Hopefully, the construction firms will bid cheaper than projected, and the project is finished under budget so that the line extensions south, north, and east can be finished now that the very expensive tunnels have been cut.

[Busy Bee]

It's basically exactly what happened with California HSR. Opponents and the media are constantly highlighting the $33 billion project estimate that was presented for the proposition compared to the current escalating cost estimates and delayed timelines. The truth of the matter is serious politicking was happening when the project was presented to the public for approval. The real cost was always closer to $60-70 billion.

[mhays]

Construction escalation has been well over general inflation in the past few years. It's easing now, thankfully.

[Metro-One]

For at grade that seems expensive.

A good comparison is the Langley Skytrain extension that is also 10 miles in length. Starts construction next year. Current estimate is 4.01 billion.

So not cheap, but the entire line and all of the stations are elevated.

Also it includes a new OMC.

Why hasn’t Austin taken a look at Vancouver? Why always Portland?

Grade separation is the only way to go for an urban area of Austin’s size with Austin’s growth, especially for the base of the system.

[mrnyc]

they want to save $$$ ?

two words for downtown.

people mover.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

For at grade that seems expensive.

A good comparison is the Langley Skytrain extension that is also 10 miles in length. Starts construction next year. Current estimate is 4.01 billion.

So not cheap, but the entire line and all of the stations are elevated.

Also it includes a new OMC.

Why hasn’t Austin taken a look at Vancouver? Why always Portland?

Grade separation is the only way to go for an urban area of Austin’s size with Austin’s growth, especially for the base of the system.

Austin's transit system is smaller than Brampton's, let alone Vancouver's. To match Portland is a much more realistic goal.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Doady

Austin's transit system is smaller than Brampton's, let alone Vancouver's. To match Portland is a much more realistic goal.

not only that the fares are much cheaper. at least for busses. its only a buck and a quarter. i dk how they even operate with that price. hmm, so it looks like a sales tax covers a quarter of the operating budget. ok.

[Doady]

So people are comparing the costs of at-grade rail vs. grade-separated rail while Austin has $1.25 fares. That's problem with these comparisons to Portland and Vancouver. Portland fares are $2.50, Vancouver $3.15 CAD. 60% of ridership in Portland and Vancouver are on buses. Portland bus fleet is two times the size of Austin, Vancouver four times. Rail will help reduce the operating costs for a large system with a large volume of riders, and Austin obviously doesn't have to worry about costs.

When Portland built its rail system it had twice the ridership that Austin has now, Vancouver seven times. Places like Portland and Vancouver built rail because their ridership was too high, not because the ridership was too low.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Doady

So people are comparing the costs of at-grade rail vs. grade-separated rail while Austin has $1.25 fares. That's problem with these comparisons to Portland and Vancouver. Portland fares are $2.50, Vancouver $3.15 CAD. 60% of ridership in Portland and Vancouver are on buses. Portland bus fleet is two times the size of Austin, Vancouver four times. Rail will help reduce the operating costs for a large system with a large volume of riders, and Austin obviously doesn't have to worry about costs.

When Portland built its rail system it had twice the ridership that Austin has now, Vancouver seven times. Places like Portland and Vancouver built rail because their ridership was too high, not because the ridership was too low.

Never-the-less, they still convinced taxpayers to build a light rail system. Too many progressives left wingers live in Austin and they have light rail envy with Dallas and Houston. Austin busiest bus routes are on Guadalupe where they wish to build the light rail line north of downtown, thru the Capitol complex and the UT main campus. So now they have to figure out a way to make that happen.
And whatever they choose to do, there is a capital limit on what they can spend because the base taxing sources for this public-private partnership is set by a referendum and legal contracts.

[jmecklenborg]

We are watching a slow-motion disaster.

At-grade light rail systems have failed to transform one U.S. city after another, yet Austin has latched onto the conga line.

[mrnyc]

yeah too many librahs.

so maybe austin will get an al porter like ‘savior’ like cleveland did?

to explain — clevelanders voted approval of a subway system and porter aka cleveland’s robert moses defied them and put the money to roadwork.

does anybody have that kind of power in austin? err, yet?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

yeah too many librahs.

so maybe austin will get an al porter like ‘savior’ like cleveland did?

to explain — clevelanders voted approval of a subway system and porter aka cleveland’s robert moses defied them and put the money to roadwork.

does anybody have that kind of power in austin? err, yet?

Nope! I keep having to remind everyone how Austin is financing their light rail system. It is not entirely publicly operated and financed. It is a public private partnership with the Federal and local governments financing, and a private partner as well. The referendum and contractual relationship sets both financing and operations duties. Neither side can change it without the approval of the other.

What changed in this new plan is how much gets built initially with the money they already have without new money from either partner. Future expansions will require new money from somebody, but I do not expect new money to come forth until they get the initial segment into operations.

Private firms do not plan to over spend with their own money when they are responsible to provide more money for going over budget. They only do so with someone else's money (the public partner).

Two years ago when many were celebrating Austin finding a private partner to help fund and operate the light rail system. I was not because I knew their planning was way too optimistic, that cuts were going to have to be made. The cuts have come now and many are unhappy. Sorry!

[Busy Bee]

Still nothing beats the letdown/what-coulda-been of Seattle. Had they gone the subway route they'd probably have the BART/WMATA system of the northwest and all the connectivity/auto-independence/development patterns that would have brought about instead of the nation's most okayish light rail system (which has seemingly done little to alleviate their punishing traffic woes).

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Still nothing beats the letdown/what-coulda-been of Seattle. Had they gone the subway route they'd probably have the BART/WMATA system of the northwest and all the connectivity/auto-independence/development patterns that would have brought about instead of the nation's most okayish light rail system (which has seemingly done little to alleviate their punishing traffic woes).

I kinda agree. With all the tunneling and above ground guideways, I think they would have been better off with an automated light rail system line Honolulu, Montreal, and Vancouver have or will have.
Light rail systems are great choices with street running in dedicated lanes, like through south Seattle. But very few miles in Seattle are in dedicated street lanes so far. So they are not taking advantage of light rail at its best.
Again, planners would like to see the most efficient transit system get built, but the public can be a hard task manager, they also expect as cheap as practical. They usually are not the same things. Taxpayers in Pierce and Snohomish Counties paying the same taxes as those in King County expect the same services as quickly as practical. Very expensive transit lines means it will take much longer for that service to reach them, therefore being as impactable as much as it is possible. So a combination of light rail and commuter rail won.

But some will argue that King County makes up 80% of Sound Transit's population base and ridership, and they should set the agenda on what gets built. But you will be wrong, without the 20% of the local funding, Seattle light rail system would be much smaller than it is today. I continue to read on these forums about Dallas' DART system being too suburban and not urban enough. Well, 50% of DART's local funding comes from it suburbs. If I believe 20% could swing the agenda, you know I believe 50% would easily.

[mhays]

Yes to the 1970 version for Seattle.

But the current version...you mean that at 25% buildout, a system that was never going to "solve traffic woes" isn't solving traffic woes?

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Still nothing beats the letdown/what-coulda-been of Seattle. Had they gone the subway route they'd probably have the BART/WMATA system of the northwest and all the connectivity/auto-independence/development patterns that would have brought about instead of the nation's most okayish light rail system (which has seemingly done little to alleviate their punishing traffic woes).

didnt somebody get a subway system after that? atlanta or dc i think? the start there was tied to seattle declining to move forward.