AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[wwmiv]

M1EK: It occurred to me that you may not really understand my position on light rail. So instead of trying myself to articulate what I believe, I'll just refer you to one of my favorite blogs and a post he wrote years ago on the prospect of rail in Indianapolis.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

M1EK: It occurred to me that you may not really understand my position on light rail. So instead of trying myself to articulate what I believe, I'll just refer you to one of my favorite blogs and a post he wrote years ago on the prospect of rail in Indianapolis.

Counter points to that linked blog:
1. Indianapolis follows a highly decentralized development pattern and very dispersed origins and destinations. This makes it a very bad for the point to point or hub and spoke model used by effectively all US rail transit systems and which is proposed in Indianapolis.
Without a rail system in place, Indianapolis had to develop in a decentralized way. I'll argue putting a rail system in place will allow high density developments along its route. Remembering this classic question, Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I hate arguments suggesting mass transit can't be built in low density cities. I suggest you can't have high density without mass transit.
Density should be looked at when deciding where to build amass transit for maximum effect, and with the city's transit system finances, which type of mass transit to build.
2. Transit and the automobile are not good substitutes. Transit works best where autos work worst and vice versa.
I basically agree with this statement. I just wanted to add that the term congestion comes into play. Do you have a corridor that's overly congested not just during am and pm rush hours? Then you as a city have to look at building something to relieve that traffic. There's very little Federal funds available today for highway expansion, but there is and will be plenty for expanding transit. That's why so many regional transportation groups are looking at transit options.
3. Rail transit, especially on street light rail, despite the claims of its proponents, typically has very low average operating speeds and longer journey times than commuting by car.
Few studies actually compare average speeds of cars vs trains. They compare buses vs trains in the heavily congested corridor in which the vehicle stops many times to pickup and drop off passengers. Trains will almost always beat regular bus routes because they don't have as many stops. While express buses in a reserved guideways will almost always be faster than trains, they rarely can carry the same capacity as trains.
4. There is no political will for transit oriented development in Indianapolis. Transit typically best serves dense development within easy walking distance – one quarter to one half mile – of a station.
I suggest there's no political or economic will for TODs anywhere until the first rail line is built. We're back to that classic question again, Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Then the economic and political will for TODs arises like a phoenix from nowhere. Does that mean you'll find TODs at every station? No. But developers will want to at a few selected stations.
5 . Indianapolis is not Portland – thank goodness. One of the great things about Indianapolis is its affordability to people with a wide range of incomes, and it would a shame to see that lost in a wave of transit oriented gentrification.
6. Indianapolis is not New York, Boston, Chicago, etc.
A true statement difficult to argue with. But the idea that TOD means pricing the working class out of a city is not necessarily true.
7. Effectively anything that can be accomplished through rail transit could be accomplished better, faster, and cheaper through buses.
Busways which have dedicated lanes are not always cheaper to build than train lines. Busways cannot carry the same number of passengers on a specific corridor during peak periods as trains. Cities with some of the best busways in the world are looking at replacing the bus with trains in specific corridors where buses no longer can move enough passengers.
8. Rail transit will not reduce traffic congestion.
Hogwash. For every 11 passengers on a train or bus, 10 cars are off the highways. Just about in every American city, there's less than 1.1 average passengers per car. Dallas's DART light rail trains carry over 65 thousand passengers daily along North Central Expressway , effectively removing 59,000 cars off that single freeway, mostly during the am and pm rush hours. Will people actually see and feel that decrease in traffic, no. Never-the-less, there are 59,000 less cars on that freeway every day.

[Scottolini]

Friday, January 1, 2010
East Austin in store for multimillion-dollar revamp
Austin Business Journal - by Jacob Dirr ABJ Staff

After almost a decade of planning, construction will begin in February to completely overhaul part of East Seventh Street between downtown and U.S. Highway 183.

While there is little doubt the $11.5 million project will improve traffic and business conditions from Navasota Street to North Pleasant Valley Road, existing small businesses are concerned about surviving through 18 months of heavy construction.

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin...581200^2665761

[wwmiv]

I think some of these businesses are over-worrying about the possibility of closure. Albeit, closure/relocation for a lot of the trashier businesses may indeed provide a huge boost to Austin's image from first time visitors - despite my disagreement with the developer that 7th is the major gateway from the airport. Riverside and Cesar Chavez are utilized just as often as 7th in getting from Downtown to the Airport. Heck, I'd just use the freeway.

[KevinFromTexas]

7th Street is a major gateway from the airport, at least if you're coming in on 183. My sister and her fiance live near Del Valle. They both work downtown and almost exclusively take 7th Street into downtown.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by electricron

Counter points to that linked blog:
1. Indianapolis follows a highly decentralized development pattern and very dispersed origins and destinations. This makes it a very bad for the point to point or hub and spoke model used by effectively all US rail transit systems and which is proposed in Indianapolis.
Without a rail system in place, Indianapolis had to develop in a decentralized way. I'll argue putting a rail system in place will allow high density developments along its route. Remembering this classic question, Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I hate arguments suggesting mass transit can't be built in low density cities. I suggest you can't have high density without mass transit.
Density should be looked at when deciding where to build amass transit for maximum effect, and with the city's transit system finances, which type of mass transit to build.
2. Transit and the automobile are not good substitutes. Transit works best where autos work worst and vice versa.
I basically agree with this statement. I just wanted to add that the term congestion comes into play. Do you have a corridor that's overly congested not just during am and pm rush hours? Then you as a city have to look at building something to relieve that traffic. There's very little Federal funds available today for highway expansion, but there is and will be plenty for expanding transit. That's why so many regional transportation groups are looking at transit options.
3. Rail transit, especially on street light rail, despite the claims of its proponents, typically has very low average operating speeds and longer journey times than commuting by car.
Few studies actually compare average speeds of cars vs trains. They compare buses vs trains in the heavily congested corridor in which the vehicle stops many times to pickup and drop off passengers. Trains will almost always beat regular bus routes because they don't have as many stops. While express buses in a reserved guideways will almost always be faster than trains, they rarely can carry the same capacity as trains.
4. There is no political will for transit oriented development in Indianapolis. Transit typically best serves dense development within easy walking distance – one quarter to one half mile – of a station.
I suggest there's no political or economic will for TODs anywhere until the first rail line is built. We're back to that classic question again, Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Then the economic and political will for TODs arises like a phoenix from nowhere. Does that mean you'll find TODs at every station? No. But developers will want to at a few selected stations.
5 . Indianapolis is not Portland – thank goodness. One of the great things about Indianapolis is its affordability to people with a wide range of incomes, and it would a shame to see that lost in a wave of transit oriented gentrification.
6. Indianapolis is not New York, Boston, Chicago, etc.
A true statement difficult to argue with. But the idea that TOD means pricing the working class out of a city is not necessarily true.
7. Effectively anything that can be accomplished through rail transit could be accomplished better, faster, and cheaper through buses.
Busways which have dedicated lanes are not always cheaper to build than train lines. Busways cannot carry the same number of passengers on a specific corridor during peak periods as trains. Cities with some of the best busways in the world are looking at replacing the bus with trains in specific corridors where buses no longer can move enough passengers.
8. Rail transit will not reduce traffic congestion.
Hogwash. For every 11 passengers on a train or bus, 10 cars are off the highways. Just about in every American city, there's less than 1.1 average passengers per car. Dallas's DART light rail trains carry over 65 thousand passengers daily along North Central Expressway , effectively removing 59,000 cars off that single freeway, mostly during the am and pm rush hours. Will people actually see and feel that decrease in traffic, no. Never-the-less, there are 59,000 less cars on that freeway every day.

Well said. All that I would add is that the FTA models recognize that rail can generate higher ridership in the same corridor than bus. This is thought to be due to a middle class bus stigma, but might also be due to the fact that rail has a smoother, for comfortable ride than buses do.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

7th Street is a major gateway from the airport, at least if you're coming in on 183. My sister and her fiance live near Del Valle. They both work downtown and almost exclusively take 7th Street into downtown.

My major issue was that they made it seem like it was THE major gateway, not one of many - which it is.

[KevinFromTexas]

True. I think they're trying to talk 7th Street up though to encourage some redevelopment. Their first attempt was with that arch structure. There definitely is potential for the street all the way to 183. It's mostly lined with car dealerships, automotive businesses, and convenience stores.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

True. I think they're trying to talk 7th Street up though to encourage some redevelopment. Their first attempt was with that arch structure. There definitely is potential for the street all the way to 183. It's mostly lined with car dealerships, automotive businesses, and convenience stores.

Remember how I was talking about redevelopment out east? This was what I meant. Redevelopment in the actual neighborhoods is out of the question, but along the major thoroughfares it isn't. Think 7th, Chavez, Springdale, 12th, MLK, Manor, and Airport transformed into something like South Congress or South Lamar.

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Their first attempt was with that arch structure.

I believe that arch is on E. 11th St., and that area has seen some decent redevelopment, with more on the way.

http://www.austinrev.org/commdev.htm

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Think 7th, Chavez, Springdale, 12th, MLK, Manor, and Airport transformed into something like South Congress or South Lamar.

Friday, January 1, 2010
$15M East Austin plan will raze old warehouse, add shops, homes
Austin Business Journal - by Jacob Dirr ABJ Staff

A Dallas-based developer hopes to transform a long-abandoned East Seventh Street warehouse into a $15 million, five-story building filled with apartments and shops.

David Gedalia of Gedalia Partnerships LP said he plans 85 apartment units and about 18,000 square feet of attached and freestanding retail on the 1.9-acre site near East Seventh and Chicon streets.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/st...04/story2.html

[Scottolini]

Also, enter 2124, 2230, or 2442 E. 6th St., or 1610 E. Cesar Chavez in Google Maps and check the area out in street view. This is just a preview of what's been built over there already, and much more is planned.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

I believe that arch is on E. 11th St., and that area has seen some decent redevelopment, with more on the way.

http://www.austinrev.org/commdev.htm

That's right, it's on 11th. Either way, those major corridor streets are prime for some up-zoning.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

Also, enter 2124, 2230, or 2442 E. 6th St., or 1610 E. Cesar Chavez in Google Maps and check the area out in street view. This is just a preview of what's been built over there already, and much more is planned.

Yeah, the area along either side (but especially the south side) of the E 7th corridor is doing very nicely. In another 10 or 12 years I suspect the whole notion of that part of the east side being somewhat dicey will have been forgotten.

[PartyLine]

From The Austin business Journal

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2010/01/04/story7.html?b=1262581200^2666421

[AustinExPat]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

My major issue was that they made it seem like it was THE major gateway, not one of many - which it is.

If you take a taxi or CapMetro's Airport Flyer from the airport to downtown, you are definitely going to come in on E 7th. I think that was Perry Lorenz's point in his bizjournal quote. I often take a taxi when I'm arriving at the airport and heading downtown, and the taxis always always always use E 7th.

[Scottolini]

I would assume the cab drivers know the best route, but I would probably take 71 to I-35, and then head north. Then again, I-35 from 71 to downtown does seem to be in a traffic jam about 12 hours of the day.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by AustinExPat

If you take a taxi or CapMetro's Airport Flyer from the airport to downtown, you are definitely going to come in on E 7th. I think that was Perry Lorenz's point in his bizjournal quote. I often take a taxi when I'm arriving at the airport and heading downtown, and the taxis always always always use E 7th.

Yep.... All the good taxi drivers know this. It costs about $6 more to go from 7th and I35 using I35/71. 7th is the cheapest route. I live downtown and fly a lot. I have tried it several times with no traffic just to check it out 'cause I didn't believe it. But it's true. 7th has long been the route of choice.

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Yep.... All the good taxi drivers know this. It costs about $6 more to go from 7th and I35 using I35/71. 7th is the cheapest route. I live downtown and fly a lot. I have tried it several times with no traffic just to check it out 'cause I didn't believe it. But it's true. 7th has long been the route of choice.

Exactly. I never take 71 to the Airport except for the one time I drove someone who lived in SW Austin there. If I am heading central, I always take 7th or Riverside.

[PartyLine]

Ben White is alot better now that the freeway goes past I35 though I used to have classes out at ACC Riverside and that was back when you had to go through the light at 35 the freeway stoped at 35 and the traffic was horrible going out there.