AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

"
In reality, you road warriors have the same exact problem as the ANC die-hards: you're holding a policy you disagree with to the standard that if it doesn't stop 100.0% of the bad thing it was trying to stop, it didn't do anything good.

This is, of course, baloney. The ANC idiots like Jeff Jack complain that some sprawl still happened, so we should stop trying infill. But the fact is that smart growth lessened sprawl by some degree. Not by 100%, but definitely by more than 0%. Just compare Austin to San Antonio - it clearly had an impact.

Of course the same can be applied to rail transit.

The 2000 light rail plan would not have solved 100% of the congestion is Austin. And the Red Line commuter rail will not have 100% of the ridership of light rail, but it will not be 0% either.

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by Northcrossed

That's it! A water taxi from 620 to Tom Miller Dam (with a stop at 360). Then an aerial tram ride from Miller to Zilker...there used to be a dragline across the river from Zilker to the brickworks where Austin High is now, so the tower and wires would be like a historical recreation. Then at Zilker you get on a trebuchet and are launched to your chosen destination downtown (like into the crown of Frost). The way they're tossing around billion$ and trillion$ in Washington lately we could apply for Federal funding and probably get it with no questions asked.

But on a serious note, I have a plan that will be as influential in Austin's history as any other.

Why don't we make the Colorado River a navigable waterway for large ships from the Gulf of Mexico? We could make the world's largest inland port out near 130 and ABIA. This could be a boon to Austin's economy like no other. Imagine, besides the economic impact, you could catch a cruise to the Caribbean without ever leaving the city. Awesome! You think this could be shovel ready in three months?

[shanny]

heres what i propose (sorry for the crude rendering
change this...


into this...


you could add one (in most places two) lanes in each direction because the grass median is so large

i doubt 360 will ever be a freeway...so a major highway is the best we can hope for

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The problem with Mopac isn't that there isn't enough room for 2 tracks; the problem is that there isn't enough room for 2 tracks plus other programmed changes without first tearing up the existing track. As discussed before.

That's NOT entirely true! They will have to move the existing tracks, but that can be done AFTER the first of the new tracks have been placed into service.

Reference http://www.dcta.net/apps/AdminFiles/...-%20FINAL..pdf
Exhibit G, page 33 of 37.

The centerline of the existing track is ~ at 30 feet in the ROW.
<----------60 ft---------->
<--30 ft-->CL<--30 ft-->
Since most rail cars need 5 ft 4 in clearances from CL of standard gauge track, they could lay the first new track well within the 14 ft recommended clearances from the CL of the existing track. I suggest laying the first new track. After train traffic has been moved to the new track, one can remove the existing track and move it in the opposite direction. You don't have to place the existing ROW completely out of service.
Notes:
Standard gauge is 4 ft 8.5 in.
Half of standard gauge is 2 ft 4.25 in.
Clearances required from track CL is 5 ft 4 in.
Recommended clearances between double track's CL is 14 ft.

5 ft 4.5 in (clearance to existing track) + 2 ft 4.25 in (half standard gauge) = 7 ft 8.75 in. (minimum clearance required to lay new track).
The new effective CL of the right of way between the new double tracks will be offset 1 ft from the existing track's CL. Not the full 7 ft. if you build the first new track's CL 14 feet from the CL of the existing track and kept the second track where the existing track is.

If the rail laying equipment required the full clearance of 5 ft 4 in over the first new track, the total clearance needed for the first new track from the existing track's CL would be 10 ft 8 inches The effective shift of the CL of the new double track layout would be 3 ft 8 in from the existing track's CL. Still much less than 7 ft.

At the end of the project, the clearance required for both tracks will require less than 25 ft.

5 ft 4 in +14 ft + 5 ft 4 in = 24 ft 8 in. With a 60 ft ROW, that leaves over 17 ft on either side of each track.
60 ft - 24 ft 8 in = 35 ft 4 in. Half that is 17 ft 8 in if the effective CL for the ROW remained the same.

But it will not. We moved the CL of the tracks 3 ft 8 in. Therefore the new layout (without tearing up the existing track first) would look like this (worse case).

<-----------------------------------------60 ft----------------------------------------->
<--14 ft--><--5 ft 4 in-->CL T#1<--14 ft-->CL T#2<--5 ft 4 in--><--21 ft -->

TXDOT would most likely want more clearances between the MoPac freeway and the double rail tracks, but I suggest a concrete barrier could be built to satisfy them. A concrete barrier would also prevent vehicle cross-over accidents.

Any expansion of the MoPac can be accomplished by building lanes outside the existing lanes, vs inside. They should plan on leaving the median for future rails.

As for MetroRail's Red Line, here's a triple line layout

<--5 ft 4 in-->CL T#2<--14 ft-->CL T#1<--14 ft-->CL T#3<--5 ft 4 in-->
That's a total of 38 ft 8 in. Within a 50 ft ROW, that leaves a total of 11 ft 4 in. Half that would be 5 feet 8 in.
I don't know what the City would require between city streets and rail lines, a fence may suffice instead of a concrete barrier. Possibly a sound barrier would suffice, because a sound barrier will most likely be needed anyways where the ROW is that small because of the noise.

[M1EK]

electricron, if you know so little about Mopac and its issues, allow me to again suggest that you stay out of it?

Expanding Mopac to the outside is a non-starter for a lot of reasons - reasons anybody who knows even a little bit about Austin should be aware of, and if not, shouldn't be talking about it. There are already programmed changes to expand a bit towards the inside.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Of course the same can be applied to rail transit.

The 2000 light rail plan would not have solved 100% of the congestion is Austin. And the Red Line commuter rail will not have 100% of the ridership of light rail, but it will not be 0% either.

Bad example.

Building commuter rail precludes the possibility of good urban rail. We're stuck with the much lesser TWG plan, if we can ever get it going amidst the operating costs and PR disaster accompanying the Red Line.

[PartyLine]

[QUOTE=electricron;4094962] TXDOT would most likely want more clearances between the MoPac freeway and the double rail tracks, but I suggest a concrete barrier could be built to satisfy them. A concrete barrier would also prevent vehicle cross-over accidents.

Any expansion of the MoPac can be accomplished by building lanes outside the existing lanes, vs inside. They should plan on leaving the median for future rails.

They can't expand Mopac on the outside because there are houses and Neighboorhoods on both sides of Mopac from 45th st to 6th street and I don't think the people that houses back to Mopac would like their backyards torn up.

[Northcrossed]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

Why don't we make the Colorado River a navigable waterway for large ships from the Gulf of Mexico?

Dallas had the same idea with the Trinity. Problem: not enough water. The rice farmers along the coast are politically-connected enough to prevent enough damming to fill the riverbed to a navigable depth upstream, and without a dam you don't have enough water to float a canoe in places/at times. It's so scarce Austin and the LCRA are fighting over who owns Austins "eau de toilette".

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

There are already programmed changes to expand a bit towards the inside.

None of the sections show any encroachment into the existing UPRR ROW. That would be very expensive. UPRR does not just give property away.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/project_i...1/drawings.htm

[M1EK]

You're right - earlier proposals included attempting to get some right-of-way from UP; the current proposal "expands to the inside" by using up shoulder space, narrowing lanes, and adding some pavement inside the existing TXDOT ROW.

Since my very first involvement with local transportation here was learning that even TXDOT couldn't get property from UPRR to assist in getting past the barrier for bicycle users at Mopac/183, I'm well aware of UP's effective control of their ROW.

The point is that the expansion is directed inwards, towards the rail; removing some of the buffer that electricron assumed existed. The theory that UP would allow construction of his proposal is ludicrous, partly given the fact that workers would be much, much closer to moving freeway traffic than they are today.

[zx14]

I find it ironic that Austin would create a scenic highway then develop around it and ruin it. Well there must be a compromise. That is make 360 into an expressway and only alow hybrids to pass. Maybe hydrogen cars.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

You're right - earlier proposals included attempting to get some right-of-way from UP; the current proposal "expands to the inside" by using up shoulder space, narrowing lanes, and adding some pavement inside the existing TXDOT ROW.

Since my very first involvement with local transportation here was learning that even TXDOT couldn't get property from UPRR to assist in getting past the barrier for bicycle users at Mopac/183, I'm well aware of UP's effective control of their ROW.

The point is that the expansion is directed inwards, towards the rail; removing some of the buffer that electricron assumed existed. The theory that UP would allow construction of his proposal is ludicrous, partly given the fact that workers would be much, much closer to moving freeway traffic than they are today.

Not if TXDOT builds the concrete barriers first. That alone protects RR workers.

Here's my 60 ft corridor layout (worse case with the most offset)

<-----------------------------------------60 ft----------------------------------------->
<--14 ft--><--5 ft 4 in-->CL T#1<--14 ft-->CL T#2<--5 ft 4 in--><--21 ft -->

Since some have argued the UP ROW is only 50 ft wide, just drop 5 feet off the outer numbers.

Double tracking, as ASA suggests, still fits! Look how close the tracks are to freeway lanes in these photos:
Southern California


Here's another, from Australia, with room for catenary poles.


Here's another, triple tracks in Tel Aviv:

[M1EK]

We all know that two tracks will fit in the ROW. The argument is over whether a track can be added to the side while keeping the existing track running at the same time, which is a very different calculus. Your picture shows nothing of the sort, and your claims in the previous message about how easy it would be to do it once the concrete barrier is up are ludicrous.

[M1EK]

"Austin" didn't create it (TXDOT did, although I don't know how much objection there was locally), and our authority over land use in the area ranges from only moderate (some spots within city limits) to nonexistent (Westlake). The state of Texas isn't fond of cities being too tough on development rules that tend to affect rich folks, and counties have no land-use authority whatsoever.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

We all know that two tracks will fit in the ROW. The argument is over whether a track can be added to the side while keeping the existing track running at the same time, which is a very different calculus. Your picture shows nothing of the sort, and your claims in the previous message about how easy it would be to do it once the concrete barrier is up are ludicrous.

Ludicrous, really? TRE is double tracking while running passenger and freight trains 24 hours/day, 7 days/week.

What's ludicrous is the idea that one must shutdown a rail line completely from service before doing any work on the ROW.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by electricron

Ludicrous, really? TRE is double tracking while running passenger and freight trains 24 hours/day, 7 days/week.

What's ludicrous is the idea that one must shutdown a rail line completely from service before doing any work on the ROW.

Nobody said anything like that.

What I've said, and what nobody but you has argued with, is that you can't build another rail line inside a 60 foot right-of-way while maintaining heavy freight traffic on an existing rail line running right down the middle of said right-of-way, especially with a heavily used highway right on the other side of said right-of-way.

Your pictures show absolutely nothing relevant to that argument. You show two tracks arranged as they would be if we could just convince UPRR to go do something else for a couple of years - great; they can clearly fit. Show me three tracks (that's basically how much space putting one line alongside the existing one would require) in the middle of a freeway ROW this size. And then show me a work crew squeezed in with that much space, with active freight at the same time.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Nobody said anything like that.

What I've said, and what nobody but you has argued with, is that you can't build another rail line inside a 60 foot right-of-way while maintaining heavy freight traffic on an existing rail line running right down the middle of said right-of-way, especially with a heavily used highway right on the other side of said right-of-way.

Your pictures show absolutely nothing relevant to that argument. You show two tracks arranged as they would be if we could just convince UPRR to go do something else for a couple of years - great; they can clearly fit. Show me three tracks (that's basically how much space putting one line alongside the existing one would require) in the middle of a freeway ROW this size. And then show me a work crew squeezed in with that much space, with active freight at the same time.

I thought the photos showed rail and highways in very close proximity to one another. Please don't try to suggest that both were built at the same time. Either the railroad or highway was built while one was in service before the other in many of the examples I posted.

[PartyLine]

Two Tracks might fit but three would not fit especially if they add HOV toll lanes.

[donclark]

I'm not familiar with the MOPAC corridor. But I have seen freeways rebuilt anew with service roads built above new freeway lanes. I have seen subway light rail lines built under freeways. Never say there isn't enough room for both freeway lanes and rail lines. There is one way or another. One only has to look at the freeways built in Houston and Dallas.

[NormalgeNyus]

normally i dont do this but i have to agree with M1EK on this. There is not enough room for 2 rail lines on mopac with those awe full toll lanes that they want to build on the inner side of mopac. and no they cant build the lanes on the outside cause there are houses that come right up to mopac. And i do see M1Ek's point that even if you were to fit two rail lanes in there it would be too dangerous for the construction workers with all the freight trains that come through. And just think about what a mess it would be if a train were to derail in that part. if that happened the other rail line would be shut down plus several lanes of mopac. Not a very good idea imo.