Subway Tunneling Discussion

[JoninATX]

I was thinking Austin should look into a subway system in the near future. It may cost more but long term I think it could help relieve some congestion.

[BevoLJ]

Jude also posted this on his blog, and I found it interesting. It is from his blog about this experience.

http://downtownaustinblog.org/2012/0...-tunnel-video/

Originally Posted by DAB

As an aside: everybody on the tour was thinking the same thing. Why couldn’t we do this for a subway? Well, we can. One of the contractors shared (off-camera) that Austin’s limestone is [actually] perfectly suited for mining a subway tunnel and wondered why the city has not pursued that with more enthusiasm. The length of Waller Creek tunnel is roughly the same length to get from I-35 to Lamar Blvd. An identical tunnel for similar cost could support a subway to traverse east-west through downtown.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Jude also posted this on his blog, and I found it interesting. It is from his blog about this experience.

http://downtownaustinblog.org/2012/0...-tunnel-video/

I was one of the first on here to suggest that a subway tunnel was quite feasible in Austin. I even cited this project as evidence. However, it would be a mistake to equate the cost of this tunnel with a subway tunnel. Putting people down underground is a lot different proposition than pouring some water in a hole.

A subway tunnel needs permanent ventilation, fire suppression, and access and emergency egress that also meets ADA (elevators, stairs, escalators, etc). The stations also have to be finished out closer to the standard of a building than a sewer pipe.

Those additions would at least double the cost per foot, and that would also only give you a tunnel in one direction. Double-tracked rail needs two parallel tunnels of about the same diameter as this tunnel.

The cost of a tunnel between I-35 and Lamar would be at least 4 times the cost of this tunnel, or about the same amount of money budgeted for the entire first phase of urban rail. And you would still need to add the tracks and other appurtenances of urban rail.

I'm not saying it is not a worthy goal to build parts of our future transit system in a subway tunnel, but when we are struggling to figure out how to build a mere 6 miles or so of urban rail, even a relatively short tunnel would be foolish at this time.

[austlar1]

Unless Austin figures out a way to commit to subway construction in the CENTRAL parts of town, Austin will never grow into a "World Class City". That's just the plain truth. Small minded people lacking in vision and determined to make do with current realities prevent this place from becoming a really great city. One day the weirdness will be gone, and Austin may no longer seem so sexy to the outside world. Then we just become another traffic choked sunbelt giant with a few tall buildings and a nice park along the river. I guess worse things could happen, but this is the time to be building a consensus for transformative projects in the city. People who harbor this kind of dream for Austin are considered to be crackpots as opposed to visionary. Every time anybody posts anything about the possibility of subway construction, it gets shot down by the resident "experts" without any serious discussion.

[the Genral]

There are 13 cities in the U.S. with subway systems... I've listed them in alphabetical order with the population raking in ( )...
Atlanta (40)
Baltimore (24)
Boston (21)
Buffalo (72)
Chicago (3)
Cleveland (47)
LA (2)
Miami (44)
NYC (1)
Newark (68)
Philadelphia (5)
San Francisco (14)
Washington DC (25)

I would think people who work in downtowns and live in the outskirts of the city would be the majority of users in a subway system, then locals, then tourists. I don't think we have enough office workers DT to justify any significant discussions about a subway for Austin yet. I think we need to see more commercial / office tower construction and more transient workers before its even close to feasible. Need one or not, there are only 13 cities in the U.S. that have a subway system. Does Austin have the same dynamics that would make a subway justifiable like with the other cities on the list? Not really.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by the Genral

There are 13 cities in the U.S. with subway systems... I've listed them in alphabetical order with the population raking in ( )...
Atlanta (40)
Baltimore (24)
Boston (21)
Buffalo (72)
Chicago (3)
Cleveland (47)
LA (2)
Miami (44)
NYC (1)
Newark (68)
Philadelphia (5)
San Francisco (14)
Washington DC (25)

I would think people who work in downtowns and live in the outskirts of the city would be the majority of users in a subway system, then locals, then tourists. I don't think we have enough office workers DT to justify any significant discussions about a subway for Austin yet. I think we need to see more commercial / office tower construction and more transient workers before its even close to feasible. Need one or not, there are only 13 cities in the U.S. that have a subway system. Does Austin have the same dynamics that would make a subway justifiable like with the other cities on the list? Not really.

This thread is getting off topic, and might be better moved to transportation, but for now I will respond here.

I think there might be some confusion on the use of the term "subway". Some of those systems are truly subways - ie. fully grade separated third rail powered metro rail systems. Others on the list (Buffalo) don't meet any definition of 'subway' that I am aware of.

What I am advocating is light rail, operating on exclusive ROW, in street, and maybe even in shared lanes in places, but entering a 'subway' tunnel in the central area, like SF Muni or DART. But that tunnel vision cannot be in the first phase, because we are struggling to raise the funds for 1/2 $B at this point. That budget could build the tunnel through downtown, but without rail or vehicles. Instead, we should be concentrating on building a street level spine through downtown, and into nearby areas. As it extends further into the central city, and additional lines are added, we will need that downtown tunnel, but that might not be for at least 25 years or so.

[nixcity]

And where would you envision the need for that tunnel to be? I have thought it would be good to put as a second round of light rail branching off from Congress and 12th area and head down Guadalupe and use the subway to get through the sticky spots down that corridor.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

This thread is getting off topic, and might be better moved to transportation, but for now I will respond here.

I think there might be some confusion on the use of the term "subway". Some of those systems are truly subways - ie. fully grade separated third rail powered metro rail systems. Others on the list (Buffalo) don't meet any definition of 'subway' that I am aware of.

What I am advocating is light rail, operating on exclusive ROW, in street, and maybe even in shared lanes in places, but entering a 'subway' tunnel in the central area, like SF Muni or DART. But that tunnel vision cannot be in the first phase, because we are struggling to raise the funds for 1/2 $B at this point. That budget could build the tunnel through downtown, but without rail or vehicles. Instead, we should be concentrating on building a street level spine through downtown, and into nearby areas. As it extends further into the central city, and additional lines are added, we will need that downtown tunnel, but that might not be for at least 25 years or so.

I also envision a SF Muni kind of system that operates above ground outside of the center of the city. The truth is that this tunnel or tunnels in the Downtown and UT area is the only way to create smooth flowing rail transit into the heart of the city. Subway tunnels need to be something that is at the heart of any longterm plan for rail transit in this city. If they can't be built now, the rail that does get built needs to be planned to eventually be placed in these tunnels. The tunnel project needs to be an acknowledged goal of transit planners. The political consensus to move towards that goal is only going to emerge when it is articulated and officially acknowledged by transit planners and other interested parties in this area. Right now talk of a tunnel gets swatted down every time it comes up. It is never seriously discussed or included in any kind of planning agenda. Every segment of rail that eventually comes into the central Austin area should be planned in such a way that it can be incorporated into a subway tunnel system that operates underground from the UT area through downtown. The public needs to be educated about the plans for this tunnel system and understand that the system is actually a stated long term goal for the community. As conditions worsen on I 35 and Mopac, I think the demand for alternative solutions to moving large numbers of commuters to and through central Austin will definitely emerge.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I also envision a SF Muni kind of system that operates above ground outside of the center of the city. The truth is that this tunnel or tunnels in the Downtown and UT area is the only way to create smooth flowing rail transit into the heart of the city. Subway tunnels need to be something that is at the heart of any longterm plan for rail transit in this city. If they can't be built now, the rail that does get built needs to be planned to eventually be placed in these tunnels. The tunnel project needs to be an acknowledged goal of transit planners. The political consensus to move towards that goal is only going to emerge when it is articulated and officially acknowledged by transit planners and other interested parties in this area. Right now talk of a tunnel gets swatted down every time it comes up. It is never seriously discussed or included in any kind of planning agenda. Every segment of rail that eventually comes into the central Austin area should be planned in such a way that it can be incorporated into a subway tunnel system that operates underground from the UT area through downtown. The public needs to be educated about the plans for this tunnel system and understand that the system is actually a stated long term goal for the community. As conditions worsen on I 35 and Mopac, I think the demand for alternative solutions to moving large numbers of commuters to and through central Austin will definitely emerge.

I don't believe tunneling should be the ultimate goal of any public transit system. Austin is more like Vancouver B.C. than Manhattan or Atlanta. Even in New York City, as the trains leave Manhattan, the rail lines rise to grade or above grade.
Now, I'm not suggesting a short tunnel shouldn't be built, but I am suggesting looking at all the options available, and at grade or above grade can work just as well as tunnels depending upon each individual situation or line.
We should be serious when discussing rail lines and commuters. How many living in the West campus area actually commute to downtown Austin or the Capital Complex? Don't most living in the West campus commute across the street to the UT campus?
I have no doubt that many commute to downtown Austin, the Capital Complex, and UT Campus. But where do most of them commuter from? Are they along one specific corridor or spread out all over Austin's metro neighborhoods? How many of them actually live in Austin, or in its suburbs? How far a distance should the public transit system reach to be usable by most of the commuters in Austin?
I'm going to suggest that a short rail line isn't going to attract that many commuters.

[austlar1]

Downtown and the UT areas are a bottleneck for rail solutions to a regional transportation problem. The congestion is real and not going to get any better. I35 can't really handle any more traffic, but it is going to get a lot more traffic just the same. Mopac is rapidly headed in the same direction. Rail can't get where it needs to go, which is to and THROUGH the downtown and UT areas, without going underground. Otherwise you end up with trains stuck in traffic and unable to provide alternative commuting solutions to a host of different kinds of commuters who need to go to or through the central Austin area. I am talking about all rail projects that end up in that area of town eventually going underground probably in some kind of multi-modal tunnel that could accomodate various kinds of light rail or street cars.

Austin is not just going to wake up one day and decide to build a subway tunnel. It won't happen unless it is a stated goal of the area planning process and gets pushed along a bit at a time at each and every opportunity. If that happens, I think the political will and the financial means can be found to get it built some time in the next 10 to 20 years. If that doesn't happen, Austin gets a patchwork of less than optimal solutions. It will remain congested and become increasingly sprawled out with far flung suburban business centers and other blights associated with most sunbelt metropoli.

I think this thread should get moved to a new topic devoted to the concept of subway building in Austin. If it gets moved to the transportation section, it will get drowned out by talk about other modalities.

[austlar1]

Damn, Kevin, that was fast! How about making subway tunnels a seperate topic?

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by electricron

I don't believe tunneling should be the ultimate goal of any public transit system. Austin is more like Vancouver B.C. than Manhattan or Atlanta. Even in New York City, as the trains leave Manhattan, the rail lines rise to grade or above grade.
Now, I'm not suggesting a short tunnel shouldn't be built, but I am suggesting looking at all the options available, and at grade or above grade can work just as well as tunnels depending upon each individual situation or line.
We should be serious when discussing rail lines and commuters. How many living in the West campus area actually commute to downtown Austin or the Capital Complex? Don't most living in the West campus commute across the street to the UT campus?
I have no doubt that many commute to downtown Austin, the Capital Complex, and UT Campus. But where do most of them commuter from? Are they along one specific corridor or spread out all over Austin's metro neighborhoods? How many of them actually live in Austin, or in its suburbs? How far a distance should the public transit system reach to be usable by most of the commuters in Austin?
I'm going to suggest that a short rail line isn't going to attract that many commuters.

Austin is a lot like Atlanta, just smaller at the core. Having trains underground through downtown Atlanta, midtown Atlanta, and Buckhead allowed Atlanta to bust through a huge traffic botteneck. Have you ever seen the downtown Atlanta Connector at rush hour? It is our own I35 bottleneck on steroids even with underground rail (MARTA) running parallel to it. Austin does not have the ability to build a Connectior like solution to I35 because of ROW limitations. We are going to need rapid rail to get our growing population through that bottleneck as we grow to Atlanta size in the next two or three or four decades.

A central Austin rail tunnel would accomodate all kinds of commuters trying to go to multiple employment or education centers. It is not all about UT students or workers downtown or in the capitol complex. Most of the traffic stuck downtown on I35 and Mopac is trying to go somewhere else. I am fairly typical. I commute from my home in SW Austin to my job in central NE Austin. I have to go through downtown on either I35 or Mopac every day. Thankfully I don't commute at rush hour, but there can be huge backups downtown at just about any hour. I envision a time somewhere down the line when I could board light rail in SW Austin and make it through downtown and on to a rail station near my job in less than 40 minutes. If that was possible, I think that I would be able to commute by rail. So would tens of thousands of other Austinites. Some of us would be headed downtown or to UT. Others, probably most of us, would be headed to other areas (Highland Mall, Mueller, Domaine, CrossPark, Arboretum area, IRS regional center, airport, Riata area) that hopefully one day will be served by rail. Without a tunnel, that kind of smooth and seamless rail transit won't happen.

[llamaorama]

Austin could look at Seattle. That is the closest thing that I could imagine happening in Austin as far as subways are concerned. In the 1990s before their light rail system was even started, they built a small downtown transit tunnel with 4 stations and ran hybrid-electric buses through it. Really what would be nice is a very short urban transit tunnel with two or three underground stops that would allow buses and light rail to go across downtown or under Guadalupe to penetrate the UT area without complicating the streets above.

But maybe the real problem is NIMBY's and pro-auto people who don't want any lanes removed for single occupant vehicles and won't allow any overhead wires or disruptive construction. Austin is a rather low density city, it would probably amuse someone from New York that Austin is in desperate need of a subway :/

Still, yeah, it would be amazing if official visionary urban plans for 30 years from now would toss around concepts like this. Austin could potentially grow to 3-4 million in the metro area decades from now according to some projections.

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by electricron

I don't believe tunneling should be the ultimate goal of any public transit system. Austin is more like Vancouver B.C. than Manhattan or Atlanta.

But even in Vancouver the rapid transit goes underground into a tunnel when it approaches downtown, it even has one whole line that's mostly underground. I think Austin is actually more like Vancouver's Canadian cousin, Calgary, which has a really cost effective and successful light rail system that would serve as a better model for Austin. It's mostly at grade as it goes out into the suburbs, but it goes underground where the two lines meet, which is downtown. This allows the the trains to get into and out of downtown quickly and efficiently without having to worry about downtown congestions, which one expects Austin would have more of if the light rail suceeds in stimulating the downtown core.

[llamaorama]

I think you are confusing Calgary with Edmonton

Edmonton's light rail runs underground in the core. Calgary's does not, it uses a transit mall approach like DART in downtown Dallas.

This is actually an interesting tidbit to bring up, because as I understand choosing a downtown tunnel option left Edmonton with less funding for extensions. Though Edmonton is a small city and actually the first in North America to build Light Rail(a bit before San Diego, first in the US in like 1980) But then to be like Calgary, Austin would have to sacrifice all or most of the space on a major urban street like Guadalupe for a surface rail, which is why a subway sounds like a cool idea.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I think you are confusing Calgary with Edmonton

Edmonton's light rail runs underground in the core. Calgary's does not, it uses a transit mall approach like DART in downtown Dallas.

This is actually an interesting tidbit to bring up, because as I understand choosing a downtown tunnel option left Edmonton with less funding for extensions. Though Edmonton is a small city and actually the first in North America to build Light Rail(a bit before San Diego, first in the US in like 1980) But then to be like Calgary, Austin would have to sacrifice all or most of the space on a major urban street like Guadalupe for a surface rail, which is why a subway sounds like a cool idea.

Austin also needs to figure out how to get rail across the river to serve the airport and rapidly growing residential areas to the south. A multi modal tunnel that tamed the UT area and made a river crossing underground or on a new bridge to south of the river is indeed a cool idea. Money, money, money. Plan for it, and it might one day happen. Call it a daydream, and it stays a daydream.

I noticed that the 12 county Atlanta area just voted down a 1 percent sales tax for transit projects that had BIPARTISAN support and supposedly would have raised almost $19 billion bucks! The NIMBYs in the Atlanta suburbs are still afraid of MARTA and would apparantly prefer to stay stuck on the Connector or the Perimeter highway. They have a great subway system in the city (heavy rail no less) that could be such a huge sucess, if it could expand to the far suburbs. Austin is going to need to enlist suburban support for any kind of subway funding. The political climate will really have to change, but time is on our side. I really do believe a subway is the inevitable outcome, if this area continues to explode with growth.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I think you are confusing Calgary with Edmonton

Edmonton's light rail runs underground in the core. Calgary's does not, it uses a transit mall approach like DART in downtown Dallas.

This is actually an interesting tidbit to bring up, because as I understand choosing a downtown tunnel option left Edmonton with less funding for extensions. Though Edmonton is a small city and actually the first in North America to build Light Rail(a bit before San Diego, first in the US in like 1980) But then to be like Calgary, Austin would have to sacrifice all or most of the space on a major urban street like Guadalupe for a surface rail, which is why a subway sounds like a cool idea.

San Diego didn't use subways to get through downtown either. Dallas and DART didn't choose Main, Elm, or Commerce streets to run its light rail streetmall on, it chose Pacific a block north of Elm to do so, and Bryan. Likewise, Austin doesn't have to choose Guadalupe or Lamar, it could use another street with far less auto traffic to run trains through these neighborhoods and chokepoints. They could go over instead of under too.
I'm not suggesting tunnels is wrong, but I am suggesting to look at all other alternatives - not automatically choosing tunnels.
As you have pointed out, most rail transit systems with lots of tunnels don't reach out as far as those that don't.
As for downtown Austin being busier after the day shift is over, the same idea applies, where do most of them eventually go home to, within a few miles of downtown Austin, or 10 to 20 miles away?