HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5841  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2017, 4:47 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 2,436
The Wire is sounding better and better.
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5842  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2017, 4:14 PM
atxsnail atxsnail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
Yes, just days away. I'm sure of it. But I'm going with the other option: The gridlock will continue for 10 more years because there is now no expansion plan and no proposed funding for the no plan.
assuming there is no sudden announcement of massive highway expansion,
perhaps the silver lining to this loss is that this adds even more urgency to the Project Connect designation of G/L to S Congress as the most important corridor for the region. the exclusion of the BRT option for I-35 already drew some acknowledgement from leadership along those lines.

now that tech ridge and southpark meadows express buses will never be "express" the only logical option is grade-separated light rail from one end of that spine to the other. maybe some of these local pols can throw their weight behind this and mobilize Austin voters accordingly.

it's a real shame that i-35 will continue to be an awful hellscape for a generation, doubly so if they add lanes in its current configuration. a buried, decked i-35 through downtown could have led to something amazing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5843  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 10:08 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
Maybe not just yet. The airport just spent $600,000 installing the facsimile of a six-string guitar, using funds generated by concessions, parking and other Austin-Bergstrom revenue and now we find out out that Capital Metro will be eliminating both the 350 and the 100 Airport Flyer in June. The airport flyer really was a "flyer." There were only five stops between downtown and the airport.

Source



Suddenly, driving and parking look a lot more appealing - especially if it's for business and your company reimburses you for the parking.

Wow, what a waste to spend all that money and effort to make a neat bus stop but if it's not really gonna be used then what was the point of it? They should have just left it a regular simple stop.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5844  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 2:59 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Wow, what a waste to spend all that money and effort to make a neat bus stop but if it's not really gonna be used then what was the point of it? They should have just left it a regular simple stop.
It will be used. The CapMetro changes are an _upgrade_ to the bus service, not a downgrade. An even larger upgrade is proposed, if/when the 20 route becomes the 820 metrorapid.

Ben Wear is being dense again. "No one will ride it because it'll be too slow" is basically a Yoga-Berra-ism.

If "no one" rides it, it'll be _faster_ than the current flyer.



There's several factors that lead to a bus being slow.

1) Congestion and traffic on Austin roads.
2) The double whammy of when 1 doesn't happen, but now the bus is running ahead of the posted schedule so it just stops for 5-10 minutes to "catch up".
3) stopping/boarding time


1 affects both the old and the new route. The riverside corridor improvements have the potential to improve this in the future, as does a 820 metrorapid potentially having signal integration (though this hasn't really panned out with the existing metrorapids).

2 is a big improvement with the new high frequency routes. You (as a rider) are no longer penalized for light traffic. The bus no longer has to stop to align with a timetable.

3 comes into play only to the extent that people are actually boarding/departing. If no one is waiting at a stop and no one pulls the cord, the bus doesn't stop (they don't operate like a subway).


So if "no one" rides, at the worst case it's no slower than before, probably faster. And much more convenient (higher frequency).


But realistically, the line will see usage. So any speed decrease from stops has to be judged against the utility of those stops, which is huge. And remember, the usage is spread across twice as many trips (higher frequency) which works to reduce the number of stops/boardings an individual run sees.


The new line is a one-seat ride to the airport from Mueller and Manor road.
The new line is now an easier transfer from the South Congress metrorapid (you can transfer on Riverside directly).
It's an easier transfer from the 803 metrorapid (transfer at a station instead of walking from Guadalupe/Lavaca to Congress).
And many of the other stops are potential transfers from the rest of the system.


Overall it integrates into the system better. It better serves the true majority consumer of transit to the airport, which is airport employees.


Now, will this new stop cause 600k worth of new riders. No. but it wasn't intended to. It's an art project/city advertising project, not a transit project. It's like all the other guitars you see inside the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5845  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 3:06 PM
paul78701 paul78701 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE View Post
Keep the island and have "exits" for different airlines from the left lane. It would keep all the big dummies from jumping in the right lane when they are headed all the way down to SWA or someone on the other side of the airport.

For pick-ups a similar solution may be warranted.
Yes. Exactly. Right now everyone enters in the very back of one long queue. This would help a lot. You shouldn't need to wade through the entire line of cars when your destination is in the middle or at the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5846  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 3:37 PM
paul78701 paul78701 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
Maybe not just yet. The airport just spent $600,000 installing the facsimile of a six-string guitar, using funds generated by concessions, parking and other Austin-Bergstrom revenue and now we find out out that Capital Metro will be eliminating both the 350 and the 100 Airport Flyer in June. The airport flyer really was a "flyer." There were only five stops between downtown and the airport.

Source



Suddenly, driving and parking look a lot more appealing - especially if it's for business and your company reimburses you for the parking.
I don't have a problem with the guitar. It kills me how many people don't realize that they can take a Cap Metro bus to the airport. The guitar serves as a good advertisement.

Quote:

Neither will the No. 100, as I noted above. It will be erased from the Capital Metro system, and the East Riverside run to the airport will fall to a re-routed No. 20 bus. There is good news and bad news embedded in that switch.

The No. 20 will be a so-called “frequent” route, running for most of the day and evening (and weekends) on 15-minute intervals. That is twice as often as the No. 100, which runs once every 30 minutes.

However, the No. 20 will have 26 stops between Lady Bird Lake and the airport, five times as many as the No. 100.
Ben Wear is being ridiculous. The #20 will NOT stop at all 26 stops. Like most routes...there are primary, scheduled/timed stops that they always stop at...and secondary stops which they only stop at if there is someone waiting at the bus stop. He should know better. I shouldn't say he's being ridiculous. He's either being dense or sensationalist.

Also, being that it is going to double the frequency of the #100 at every 15 minutes, there is less chance that any one bus is going to have to make an extra, burdensome number of stops at the secondary, non-scheduled/timed stops. It's simple probability and statistics.

The #20 from, say downtown, shouldn't take much (if any) longer than the current #100.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5847  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 3:49 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul78701 View Post
He should know better. I shouldn't say he's being ridiculous. He's either being dense or sensationalist.
Jinx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5848  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 4:06 PM
paul78701 paul78701 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
Jinx
Ha. I guess we did say some of the same things.

Another note, if the #20 becomes too slow because of too many riders, they can increase the frequency to every 10 minutes or whatever.

One can Criticize Cap Metro however they want, but I seriously doubt that they aren't going to be watching how the new routes perform. They can/will do some tweaking to fix what might need it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5849  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 5:45 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by abigdeal View Post
I just can’t imagine that any plan today would include adding resources like significant head count given the price tag for planned capital improvements. Seems like every available dollar (including bond funding) is going to need to go into construction rather than permanent overhead.
Then you're limited in the improvements you can make. If keeping headcount down is the priority then you are looking at a focus on a centralized expansion like the pier proposal we've seen or like the annex like proposal where they build a little island concourse between the main terminal and the tower and connect to it via a people mover. If you want to use all that extra space at the airport and really diversity what you can offer then you need to look at building a 2nd terminal which is going to drastically increase headcount and general overhead.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that it's the wrong way to go. Just trying to point out the very direct relationship between improvements and consequential headcount/general overhead especially as it relates to a centralized/decentralized system. Maybe a centralized system isn't that much of a disadvantage. I just like the idea of a 2nd terminal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by abigdeal View Post
Also, I’m sure that airport management is very aware that the death of the major cash cow, parking and rental car revenue, is headed toward a major decline and will be very judicious about long term spending. Say what you want abou other parts of our city infrastructure, but the airport is a major success.
Completely agree about the airport staff. They do a good job and have talked about how they are looking to plan for a day when most of the cars coming to the airport are autonomous.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
It will be used. The CapMetro changes are an _upgrade_ to the bus service, not a downgrade. An even larger upgrade is proposed, if/when the 20 route becomes the 820 metrorapid.

Ben Wear is being dense again. "No one will ride it because it'll be too slow" is basically a Yoga-Berra-ism.

If "no one" rides it, it'll be _faster_ than the current flyer.



There's several factors that lead to a bus being slow.

1) Congestion and traffic on Austin roads.
2) The double whammy of when 1 doesn't happen, but now the bus is running ahead of the posted schedule so it just stops for 5-10 minutes to "catch up".
3) stopping/boarding time


1 affects both the old and the new route. The riverside corridor improvements have the potential to improve this in the future, as does a 820 metrorapid potentially having signal integration (though this hasn't really panned out with the existing metrorapids).

2 is a big improvement with the new high frequency routes. You (as a rider) are no longer penalized for light traffic. The bus no longer has to stop to align with a timetable.

3 comes into play only to the extent that people are actually boarding/departing. If no one is waiting at a stop and no one pulls the cord, the bus doesn't stop (they don't operate like a subway).


So if "no one" rides, at the worst case it's no slower than before, probably faster. And much more convenient (higher frequency).


But realistically, the line will see usage. So any speed decrease from stops has to be judged against the utility of those stops, which is huge. And remember, the usage is spread across twice as many trips (higher frequency) which works to reduce the number of stops/boardings an individual run sees.


The new line is a one-seat ride to the airport from Mueller and Manor road.
The new line is now an easier transfer from the South Congress metrorapid (you can transfer on Riverside directly).
It's an easier transfer from the 803 metrorapid (transfer at a station instead of walking from Guadalupe/Lavaca to Congress).
And many of the other stops are potential transfers from the rest of the system.


Overall it integrates into the system better. It better serves the true majority consumer of transit to the airport, which is airport employees.


Now, will this new stop cause 600k worth of new riders. No. but it wasn't intended to. It's an art project/city advertising project, not a transit project. It's like all the other guitars you see inside the airport.
Great Post. The 20 is a pretty direct way to get from the airport to the city's main transit artery. Hopefully they'll green light a lot of the riverside improvements. People are going to flip their shit when they see that the recommendation is to get rid of Pleasant Valley's crossing at Riverside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5850  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 6:32 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
People are going to flip their shit when they see that the recommendation is to get rid of Pleasant Valley's crossing at Riverside.
I hadn't actually seen that recommendation (or had forgotten about it). Thanks for alerting/reminding me.

Definitely an interesting change (though getting center running transit first is the most important thing).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5851  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 7:53 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
I hadn't actually seen that recommendation (or had forgotten about it). Thanks for alerting/reminding me.

Definitely an interesting change (though getting center running transit first is the most important thing).
It's going to need to be bus rapid. I was going to post in the transit thread about this but any hope of light rail that crosses 35 needs to be buried for a few years. The new riverside overpass (and riverside area 35 work) was a standalone project like the current projects at WilliamCannon/Stassney and Oltorf. Then, it was canceled and incorporated into the Capital Express Project which was then put in a stage of awkward limbo because of the Governor. The riverside overpass project was de-authroized in a revision to TxDot's 10 year construction plan as was the Capital Express.

It would be relatively simple if the problem was money but the problem is conceptual and until TxDot knows what it wants to do, commissions studies and finds a way to pay for it without bonds, any light rail line that crosses 35 is dead in the water. The only corridors that are currently understudy for light rail that cross 35 are Riverside, 7th, MLK, DeanKeaton/Manor and Airport Blvd. Every single one of those intersections is due for a complete re-build except if they decide to keep the upper/lower deck. Then Dean Keaton wouldn't require much work.

Here is the Riverside / Pleasant Valley intersection if anyone is interested:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5852  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 7:58 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,543
Thanks for the great posts guys. Too bad we have a negative nelly who is in charge of the stateman's transit coverage. Novacek Would do a much better job in explaining the reasons for Cap Metro changes than Ben Wear.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5853  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 9:53 PM
StoOgE StoOgE is offline
Resident Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
It's going to need to be bus rapid. I was going to post in the transit thread about this but any hope of light rail that crosses 35 needs to be buried for a few years. The new riverside overpass (and riverside area 35 work) was a standalone project like the current projects at WilliamCannon/Stassney and Oltorf. Then, it was canceled and incorporated into the Capital Express Project which was then put in a stage of awkward limbo because of the Governor. The riverside overpass project was de-authroized in a revision to TxDot's 10 year construction plan as was the Capital Express.

It would be relatively simple if the problem was money but the problem is conceptual and until TxDot knows what it wants to do, commissions studies and finds a way to pay for it without bonds, any light rail line that crosses 35 is dead in the water. The only corridors that are currently understudy for light rail that cross 35 are Riverside, 7th, MLK, DeanKeaton/Manor and Airport Blvd. Every single one of those intersections is due for a complete re-build except if they decide to keep the upper/lower deck. Then Dean Keaton wouldn't require much work.

Here is the Riverside / Pleasant Valley intersection if anyone is interested:

That seems a bad idea. Could they just bury Pleasant Valley?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5854  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 10:23 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE View Post
That seems a bad idea. Could they just bury Pleasant Valley?
That's really expensive. If people in Austin are serious about wanting less traffic then they need to get used to more U-Turns. For example, The 183 project is eliminating crossovers at 51st, Techni Center and Bolm. They'll have protected U-Turns at the other crossings as well as at a creek between MLK and the lake. You make drive further but it'll mostly take you less time.


That being said, it's possible that some of the proposals in these studies change and obviously that some of them won't have the money to be constructed at all.

It's possible they put limited funds in Riverside from the 2016 bond and instead wait until a mass transit 2020 bond to fund the improvements.

I mean, this is all contingent on Adler winning re-election. If Morrison wins and Kitchen/Houston are re-elected then you can kiss a billion dollar 2020 deal goodbye.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5855  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 1:39 AM
abigdeal's Avatar
abigdeal abigdeal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Austin, yo
Posts: 178
The transit thing reminds me of something else. I either read or heard from the airport folks that none of the airport rail lines in the US are profitable. Turned me around on the idea that we need a train to ABIA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5856  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 3:44 AM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by abigdeal View Post
The transit thing reminds me of something else. I either read or heard from the airport folks that none of the airport rail lines in the US are profitable. Turned me around on the idea that we need a train to ABIA.
That’s good to know. I think the only reason to build it is to ease highway traffic from airport employees which is why I don’t think austin needs it yet.

Interestingly, Musk is building a tunnel for a new transit project from Midway to downtown Chicago. They already have a regular train.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5857  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 3:51 AM
abigdeal's Avatar
abigdeal abigdeal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Austin, yo
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
That’s good to know. I think the only reason to build it is to ease highway traffic from airport employees which is why I don’t think austin needs it yet.

Interestingly, Musk is building a tunnel for a new transit project from Midway to downtown Chicago. They already have a regular train.
Yeah. I think ultimately the vast majority of riders end up being employees. The basic position was that it should be the last line in a system once everything else is connected, if at all. It's a community statement more than something that makes economic sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5858  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 3:52 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 2,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
Here is the Riverside / Pleasant Valley intersection if anyone is interested:

Having lived in China for about seven years now, I love traffic circles - and merging in general - and that's essentially what this is. It gets traffic moving and allows for a free-flow resolution to problem intersections. That said, it's all in the culture of the drivers. In the U.S., people seem to hate merging and things that aren't black and white in general (when it comes to transportation). Some good, some bad, to that I suppose.
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5859  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 8:12 AM
hookem hookem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
That said, it's all in the culture of the drivers. In the U.S., people seem to hate merging and things that aren't black and white in general (when it comes to transportation). Some good, some bad, to that I suppose.
You are on to something here. US drivers really don't do merging well. A standard zipper merge is almost impossible here -- the concept doesn't seem to get through. Half the people merge early, thinking they are being nice or thinking ahead. Then people go past them, and they get upset and don't let people in. Which then confirms their notion that it is better to merge early, because someone might not let them in if they wait until the proper merge point. Ends up being a vicious cycle. They much prefer the parallel temporary exit-only lane merge, where all they have to do is a standard lane change within a specific distance.

I realize this proposed intersection isn't a zipper-merge situation, but it's the same problem as traffic circles have here. Drivers here just don't grasp (or like) the cooperative nature of that kind of intersection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5860  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 1:23 PM
khowaga khowaga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookem View Post
You are on to something here. US drivers really don't do merging well. A standard zipper merge is almost impossible here -- the concept doesn't seem to get through. Half the people merge early, thinking they are being nice or thinking ahead. Then people go past them, and they get upset and don't let people in. Which then confirms their notion that it is better to merge early, because someone might not let them in if they wait until the proper merge point. Ends up being a vicious cycle. They much prefer the parallel temporary exit-only lane merge, where all they have to do is a standard lane change within a specific distance.

I realize this proposed intersection isn't a zipper-merge situation, but it's the same problem as traffic circles have here. Drivers here just don't grasp (or like) the cooperative nature of that kind of intersection.
When I lived and drove in DC (of all places) in the 90s zipper merge was common courtesy. It’s an aggressive city, but there are rules (and woe be to the tourist who doesn’t know them).

Driving in Austin, in particular, is so unpredictable because everyone learned to drive somewhere else. Half the people are super aggressive and half are so timid that they create even more havoc because they’d rather come to a complete stop than merge in front of another car.
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 8:19 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.